Court of Justice of the EU: the exploitation of collective works must not be hindered by formalities that restrict the protection of copyright.

The rules governing the admissibility of an action for infringement of copyright in a collective work must ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection, avoiding procedures that are unnecessarily complex or burdensome.

National law must comply with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence of EU law, avoiding formal requirements that make it impossible to summon all co-holders of copyright to the proceedings or that restrict effective access to judicial redress. This was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in Case C-182/24 | SACD and Others.

The case

Between 1967 and 1974, Claude Chabrol produced fourteen films, five of which were made in collaboration with screenwriter Paul Gégauff. In 1990, the exploitation rights to several of those films were assigned for a period of 30 years to the company Brinter, which in 2012, in turn, transferred to Panoceanic Films SA the exploitation rights relating to the five films to which Paul Gégauff had contributed as an author.

After the death of the two authors, their successors in title brought legal proceedings concerning the terms and scope of the assignment of those rights, in particular with regard to the conditions for the exploitation of the works. They alleged breaches of contract and infringements of copyright.
The defendant companies argued instead that such an action required the participation of all the co-authors or their successors in title. It emerged that it had not been possible to bring together all the co-authors of the films concerned and their respective successors, in particular due to the age of the works and the personal circumstances of some of the co-authors.

In that context, the Paris Tribunal referred questions to the Court of Justice concerning the compatibility with EU law of a national procedural rule which makes the admissibility of an action conditional upon all co-authors of a cinematographic work being summoned to participate in the proceedings.

In its judgment, the Court held that EU law does not preclude a national rule which makes the admissibility of an action conditional on all co-holders of copyright being called upon to participate in the proceedings, provided that the procedure remains reasonable and does not undermine the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. Where the national court finds that such a requirement renders access to justice impossible or excessively difficult, it must ensure the full effectiveness of the right to an effective remedy and, where necessary, disapply the conflicting national provisions.

The Court first recalled that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the right to property and the right to an effective remedy: any national rule which, in practice, deprives a person of that right constitutes a breach of the principle of effectiveness. It added that it is for the national court to assess, in the light of the requirements of the Charter, whether the French procedural rule requiring all co-authors to be summoned results in an unnecessarily complex or costly procedure. Procedural requirements that are impossible or extremely difficult to satisfy have the effect of neutralising the right to seek copyright protection, contrary to the principle of effectiveness.

Finally, the Court recalled that the Charter protects intellectual property and that the obligation to summon each co-holder of copyright to participate in the proceedings must be compatible with that fundamental right.