Case C- 372/19 SABAM [Archived]

The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case C- 372/19 SABAM [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Related/relevant cases

Case C- 372/19 SABAM [Archived]


ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 November 2020; it is no longer maintained.

See further: timeline, and related/relevant cases

Case facts

OutlineCase C- 372/19 SABAM—a national reference from Belgium seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 102 TFEU (whether or not read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2014/26/EU) should be interpreted as meaning there is abuse of a dominant position if a copyright management company (which has a de facto monopoly) applies a remuneration model to organisers of musical events for the right to communicate musical works to the public, based among other things on turnover.

Latest developmentsOn 25 November 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it concluded that the mere fact that the tariff system adopted by SABAM does not in itself constitute an indication of the existence of unfair prices, nor does not make it possible to find the existence of such an abuse. It is for the referring court to assess whether the application of Tariff 211, in so far as it authorises only certain costs to be deducted from these amounts, is likely to impose unfair prices. The Court of Justice also considered that it was for the referring court to assess whether there are methods which make

Popular documents