Referral C-788/24 (Anne Frank Fonds, 14 Nov 2024)

[Unofficial translation]

1. Must Article 3(1) Copyright Directive be interpreted as meaning that a publication of a work on the internet can only be regarded as a communication to the public in a particular country if the publication is addressed to the public in that country? If so, what factors should be taken into account in assessing this?

2. Can there be a communication to the public in a particular country if, by means of (state of the art) geo-blocking, it has been ensured that the website on which the work is published can be reached by the public in that country only by circumventing the blocking measure using a VPN or similar service? Is the extent to which the eligible public in the blocked country is willing and able to access the website concerned via such a service of relevance? Does it make any difference to the answer to this question whether, in addition to the measure of geo-blocking, other measures have been taken to impede or discourage access to the website by the public in the blocked country?

3. If the possibility of circumventing the blocking measure entails communication of the work published on the internet to the public in the blocked country within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive, is that communication made by the person who published the work on the internet, even though knowledge of that communication requires the intervention of the provider of the VPN or similar service concerned?