the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society entitled “ Right of communication to the public of works and right of making available to the public other subject-matter”, which establishes the following: “Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”. The Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I) initially prohibited Citadines from making the episode available to the public, a decision later confirmed. The case was referred to the CJEU from the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court Munich, Germany), for a preliminary ruling: “Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 March 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision or practice according to which the provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication — such as television sets in hotel rooms or hotel fitness rooms — is regarded as communication to the public when, while the transmission signal, in addition, is retransmitted to the physical facilities via the hotel’s own cable distribution system, that cable retransmission takes place lawfully on the basis of a licence acquired by the hotel?”. The court highlighted that the concept of "communication to the public" consists of two key criteria that must be met together: (1) the act of communicating a work and (2) the communication of that work to a "public". Additionally, these criteria require an individual assessment (3). The CJEU emphasized that this assessment must take into account several interconnected criteria, which are not independent and must be considered together. Furthermore, these criteria should be evaluated individually and in relation to each other, as their significance may vary in different situations. The judges of Luxembourg underlined the role of the user (in this case, the hotel) and the intentional nature of their actions. According to the CJEU,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==