ECLI:EU:C:2026:383

Full text

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

NORKUS

delivered on 7 May 2026 (1)

Case C‑276/25

RÖSLE GROUP GmbH

EVROmat a.s.

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Action relating to an infringement of an intellectual property right – Right of information – Scope – Right not only to information, but also to the relevant documents demonstrating the accuracy and completeness of that information )

1. EU law seeks to protect intellectual property rights, which constitute an essential engine for the success of the internal market. A procedural measure specific to that protection consists of the right of the holder of an intellectual property right to obtain information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe that right. Does that measure enable rightholders to obtain only information, in the sense of the data itself, or also supporting documents demonstrating the accuracy and completeness of that information? That is the question on which the Court is asked to give a ruling in the present case.

Legal framework

European Union law

2. Recitals 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20 and 21 and Articles 1, 3 and 6 to 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC are relevant for the purposes of the present case. (2)

Czech law

3. Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 was transposed into Czech law by Paragraph 3 of zákon č. 221/2006 Sb., o vymáhání práv z průmyslového vlastnictví (Law No 221/2006 on the enforcement of industrial property rights). Paragraph 3 provides:

‘(1) The rightholder may claim from a third party who:

(a) has held infringing goods for the purpose of obtaining direct or indirect economic or commercial gain; or

(b) has used infringing services for the purpose of obtaining direct or indirect economic or commercial gain; or

(c) was found to have provided services used in infringing activities for the purpose of obtaining direct or indirect economic or commercial gain; or

(d) was identified by a person referred in in subparagraph (a), (b), or (c) as a person involved in the production, manufacture, warehousing, or distribution of the goods or the provision of services;

information about the origin and distribution networks for infringing goods or services.

(2) If the information pursuant to subparagraph 1 is not provided voluntarily within a reasonable period, the rightholder may seek that information by making an application to the court in infringement proceedings. The court shall dismiss the application if it is disproportionate to the seriousness of the threat to or infringement of the right.

(3) The information shall comprise:

(a) the name and surname, or the company name, and place of residence or registered office of the producer, manufacturer, warehouse keeper, distributor, supplier, and any previous holder of the infringing goods or service;

(b) information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, stored, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the goods or services in question.

(4) The provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall apply without prejudice to the provisions of special regulations governing, in particular:

(a) the right to receive fuller information;

(b) the use of information in civil or criminal proceedings;

(d) the obligation of confidentiality;

(e) the right to refuse to provide information which would force the person referred to in subparagraph 1 to admit to his or her own participation, or that of his or her close relatives, in the infringement of a right;

(f) the protection of the confidentiality of information sources or the processing of personal data.’

The facts in the dispute in the main proceedings, the question referred for a preliminary ruling and the proceedings before the Court of Justice

4. The case in the main proceedings concerns a dispute between RÖSLE GROUP, a company incorporated under German law and proprietor of Community designs No 004702645-0001 and No 004702645-0002 (both with a priority date of 9 February 2018), which used those designs in the manufacture of its products, and EVROmat, a company incorporated under Czech law, which, according to RÖSLE GROUP, placed a product on the market (a valve forming part of a rainwater drainage system) whose shape was identical to the applicant’s designs.

5. RÖSLE GROUP sought, inter alia, an order requiring EVROmat to refrain from manufacturing, marketing and selling the product in question, and an order requiring EVROmat to provide RÖSLE GROUP with the relevant information concerning that product, including the relevant documents to support that information.

6. The Městský soud v Praze (Municipal Court, Prague, Czech Republic), as the court of first instance, dismissed RÖSLE GROUP’s application in its entirety. However, on appeal, the Vrchní soud v Praze (High Court, Prague, Czech Republic), varied the judgment delivered at first instance, ordering EVROmat, first, to refrain from manufacturing, marketing, and selling the product, and secondly to provide RÖSLE GROUP with the following information on that product: (a) the name and surname, or the company name, and place of residence or registered office of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier, and any other previous holder of the goods, and (b) information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, warehoused, received or ordered and the price paid and received for those goods.

7. The appeal court, however, upheld the first-instance court’s rejection of RÖSLE GROUP’s request regarding the production of documents to support that information. As grounds for its decision on the right of information, the appeal court held that, in accordance with Paragraph 3(1)(a) of Law No 221/2006, only the provision of information may be ordered, and not the production of supporting documents, since an obligation to produce the relevant documents would significantly extend the legal obligation and would, in particular, increase the costs borne by the person responsible for providing the information.

8. RÖSLE GROUP and EVROmat brought an appeal on a point of law against the judgment of the court of appeal before the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic), the referring court, relying on a ground of appeal alleging an error in the legal assessment.

9. According to the referring court, the Court of Justice has not yet settled the question of ‘whether an entity governed by private law that is obliged to provide information under Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC – or national legislation transposing the right to information – can also be obliged to demonstrate the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, by providing the applicant with the relevant documents’. The referring court considers that the relevant provisions of EU law do not provide a clear answer to the question posed, such that that answer could be reached without any reasonable doubt, or in other words, they do not constitute an acte clair.

10. In those circumstances, the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must the provisions of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive [2004/48/EC] be interpreted as meaning that a national court must, on the application of an applicant, order an infringer (or another person referred to therein) not only to provide the information referred to therein itself, but also impose the obligation to demonstrate the accuracy and completeness of the information by presenting the relevant documents to the applicant?’

11. The order for reference, dated 19 March 2025, was received at the Court Registry on 11 April 2025. Written observations were submitted by the applicant in the main proceedings, RÖSLE GROUP, and by the European Commission. The Court decided not to hold a hearing, in accordance with Article 76(2) of its Rules of Procedure.

Analysis

12. By its single question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks about the scope of the right of information under Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48. In particular, it seeks to ascertain whether that article confers on the holder of an intellectual property right that has been infringed the right to obtain, if the conditions of that article are satisfied, only the information listed in that article or also the supporting documents demonstrating the accuracy and completeness of that information.

13. The referring court, which appears to attach particular importance to the meaning of the term ‘information’ in Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48, which, in its view, refers to the data itself, is of the opinion that only the provision of that information may be the subject of proceedings under that article. By contrast, the Commission and RÖSLE GROUP submit, in essence, that the scope of the right of information within the meaning of that same article should be interpreted broadly, as covering not only the provision of information but also the production of documents demonstrating the accuracy and completeness of that information.

14. In that regard, it should be observed at the outset that, under Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48, Member States are to ensure that, in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right and in response to a justified and proportionate request of the claimant, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right be provided by the infringer and/or any other person who was found to be providing on a commercial scale services used in infringing activities.

15. Article 8(2) of Directive 2004/48 states that the information referred to in paragraph 1 of that article must, as appropriate, comprise, the names and addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, and information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the goods or services in question.

16. Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48 is silent as to whether the Member States are to ensure that the competent courts may, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, order the defendant not only to provide the information requested but also to demonstrate that the information is accurate and complete. In other words, it is not possible to infer from the wording of that article the form in which the information is to be provided or the manner in which it is to be transmitted. Nevertheless, the wording of Article 8(1) and (2) also does not preclude that information from being provided in the form of documents so as to demonstrate the accuracy and completeness of the information. (3)

17. That being said, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the procedure for requesting information provided for in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48 in favour of the holder of intellectual property rights constitutes a separate procedure and is a specific feature of EU law. (4) The right of information provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive is a specific expression of the fundamental right to an effective remedy guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and thereby ensures the effective exercise of the fundamental right to property, which includes the intellectual property right protected in Article 17(2) of the Charter. That right of information thus enables the holder of an intellectual property right to identify who is infringing that right and take the necessary steps, such as making an application for the provisional measures set out in Article 9(1) and (2) or for damages as provided for in Article 13 of Directive 2004/48, in order to protect that right. Without full knowledge of the extent of the infringement of his or her intellectual property right, the rightholder would not be in a position to determine or calculate precisely the damages he or she was entitled to by reason of the infringement. (5) Thus, it is clear that Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48 provides for a procedural measure enabling the holder of an intellectual property right to obtain information on the persons involved in the infringement of that right and on the extent of that infringement.

18. I am of the view that information on the true extent of the infringement and the persons involved in it can be regarded as having been provided only if the information communicated is accurate and complete. In order to ensure that that information is accurate and complete, the right of information, within the meaning of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48, must be understood as relating not only to the provision of the information referred to therein, but also to the presentation of documents corroborating the accuracy and completeness of that information, where the applicant so requests. That approach is supported by aspects related to the context and purpose of that provision. (6)

19. As regards the context of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48, it should be noted that recital 21 of that directive provides that the right of information, which is designed to ensure a high level of protection, makes it possible to obtain precise information on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement. That recital may thus support the interpretation that the right of information, within the meaning of Article 8(1) and (2), should ensure that the holder of an intellectual property right that has been infringed obtains data determined with precision (7) on the basis of corroborating evidence.

20. The referring court is of the view that the production of documents in order to prove a claim of an infringement of intellectual property rights should be the subject of subsequent enforcement proceedings, in accordance with the rules of national law, subject to compliance with the rules laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/48. In other words, proceedings initiated under Article 8 and Articles 6 and 7 of that directive are separate, and indeed proceedings under Article 8 precede those initiated under Articles 6 and 7.

21. It should be observed that there is nothing in Directive 2004/48 to indicate that those procedural measures should necessarily be adopted in the chronological order suggested by the referring court. It should be borne in mind that they are all listed in Chapter 2 of that directive, entitled ‘Measures, procedures and remedies’, divided among different sections according to their procedural category.

22. In Section 2 of Directive 2004/48, regarding evidence, Articles 6 and 7, which specifically set out the obligations on Member States to ensure that there are effective means to present and preserve evidence, aim to ensure that the information needed to determine whether an infringement of intellectual property rights has taken place and, if so, what its consequences are, is made available to the applicant and to the competent judicial authorities. (8) Moreover, recital 20 of that directive establishes not only the importance of evidence for establishing the infringement of intellectual property rights, but also the importance of ensuring that effective means of presenting, obtaining and preserving evidence are available. However, the purpose of the right of information, within the meaning of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48, is not to inform the holder of an intellectual property right about the actual existence of the infringement, but rather about the source and extent of the infringement.

23. Moreover, the procedural measures provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/48 appear to have a broader scope than that provided for in Article 8 of that directive as regards the information concerned. Article 8(2) provides an exhaustive list of the information which may be the subject of that procedural measure, whereas Articles 6 and 7 merely refer, in a general manner, to evidence, without limiting the facts which that evidence is intended to prove. Furthermore, under Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 it is possible to obtain information which goes beyond that which can be obtained from the infringer alone, and thus to identify the persons who are ‘behind the scenes’ of the infringement, often as part of complex distribution networks. (9) Those characteristics of the aforementioned procedural measures seem to me to support the conclusion that those measures are autonomous, as opposed to being dependent on one another or on the order in which they are to be implemented.

24. Accordingly, in relation to the measures concerning the presentation, obtaining and preservation of evidence, the right of information constitutes one of the ‘other’ measures designed to ensure a high level of protection. (10) In that regard, the right of information and the means of presenting and preserving evidence may nonetheless be regarded as complementary, where appropriate. Although the purpose of the right to information, as a procedural means, is to enable the information listed in Article 8(2) of Directive 2004/48 to be obtained, that right may, in my view, be exercised in conjunction with other procedural measures relating, in particular, to the presentation and obtaining of evidence of an infringement of an intellectual property right, if the conditions for the exercise of the latter measures are satisfied, in accordance with Article 6(1) of the directive.

25. Recital 14 of Directive 2004/48 supports the conclusion that the procedural measures referred to in Article 8(1) and (2) and, in particular, in Article 6(1) of that directive are complementary. Indeed, that recital refers together to the measures provided for in Articles 6(1) and 8(2) as needing to be applied only in respect of acts carried out on a commercial scale, without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply those measures also in respect of other acts. (11)

26. Furthermore, according to the case-law of the Court, a request for information under Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/28 may be made either before proceedings relating to an infringement of an intellectual property right have been brought (12) or after the definitive termination of such proceedings. (13) The chronological order suggested by the referring court, according to which requests for information must be made first, and requests for supporting documents second, may conflict with the context described above.

27. Furthermore, having the chronological order of processing a request for information before verifying the accuracy and completeness of that information may be contrary to the general obligation laid down in Article 3 of Directive 2004/48 which, given that it is a general provision, as indicated by the title of Section 1 in Chapter II on ‘Measures, procedures and remedies’, is applicable across the area of the protection of intellectual property rights covered by that directive. (14) More specifically, if the accuracy and completeness of the information provided under Article 8(1) and (2) had to be verified in the context of subsequent enforcement proceedings, that would risk unnecessarily prolonging and complicating the proceedings, or even making them more costly, particularly for the holder of an intellectual property right that has been infringed. (15) Moreover, a solution whereby the provision of information is differentiated from the presentation of documents supporting the accuracy and completeness of that information may be hard to justify from the point of view of the sound administration of justice.

28. Consequently, that context precludes, in my view, the conclusion put forward by the referring court, according to which the completeness and accuracy of the information provided under Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48 should be verified in subsequent and separate enforcement proceedings, subject to compliance with the rules under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/48, even though the holder of an intellectual property right made that request in the exercise of his or her right of information.

29. From a teleological perspective, the conclusion which appears to be the most consistent with the objective of Directive 2004/48 is that it is necessary not only to provide the information referred to in that article, at the request of the holder of an intellectual property right, within the meaning of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48, but also to produce evidence corroborating the accuracy and completeness of that information.

30. In fact, the EU legislature chose by that directive to ensure a high, equivalent and homogeneous level of protection of intellectual property in the internal market by approximating the legislation of the Member States, (16) and thus to provide for minimum harmonisation concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights in general. (17) The protection of intellectual property is an essential element for the success of the internal market. In particular, that protection is important not only for promoting innovation and creativity, but also for developing employment and improving competitiveness. (18)

31. The means of enforcing intellectual property rights are of paramount importance for the success of the internal market. (19) For that purpose, Directive 2004/48 provides for the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights. (20) The Court has held that the provisions of that directive are not intended to govern all aspects of intellectual property rights, but only those aspects inherent, first, in the enforcement of those rights and, secondly, in infringement of them, by requiring that there must be effective legal remedies designed to prevent, terminate or rectify any infringement of an existing intellectual property right. (21)

32. Accordingly, the right of information provided for in Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48 is an instrumental right aimed at ensuring effective protection of intellectual property, whose objective is to level out, to a certain extent, the different amounts of information held by the alleged infringer of an intellectual property right and the holder of that right. (22) I therefore agree with the Commission that being able to obtain accurate and complete information under that right of information is essential to ensure the effectiveness of that right and, more generally, of the protection of intellectual property rights which the measures provided for in Directive 2004/48 are intended to guarantee.

33. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in the judgment in Knor, when asked about the requirements incumbent on the applicant to prove, for the purpose of a request for information under Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48, that he or she is the holder of an intellectual property right, the Court held that, in order to specify whether the evidence produced in the context of the procedure for requesting that information is sufficient, it is necessary to take into consideration the nature of the intellectual property right and any special formalities governing the ownership of that right, and that it is therefore for the referring court to assess whether that applicant has adduced sufficient evidence, establishing that he or she is the holder of the intellectual property right. (23)

34. In that regard, would it not be appropriate to give consideration to the potential need for parallel requirements in the field of the protection of intellectual property rights under Directive 2004/48, as ensured by the procedural measure provided in Article 8(1) of that directive? In particular, if the applicant, in order to request information about the extent of the infringement of his or her intellectual property right, is required to adduce sufficient evidence that he or she is the holder of that right, why would the infringer or any third party be exempted from producing documents corroborating the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the context of that procedure?

35. That requirement to produce not only the information itself but also the documents to support it seems to me to be all the more justified since the right of information, within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, is not an absolute right. It is subject to restrictions, as no abuse of that right is tolerated. (24) In particular, if it is found that the applicant has abused the request to exercise his or her right of information, the referring court must refuse to grant that request. (25) It is also evident that the general principle of EU law that ‘no one is obliged to do the impossible’ (26) applies where an infringer or any third party is required to provide the holder of an intellectual property right with information, in accordance with Article 8, including the documents corroborating that information. In particular, they should only be required to provide supporting documents which are reasonably available, and in accordance with detailed rules laid down by national law, which must be formulated in such a way as to enable the objectives of Directive 2004/48 to be achieved, notably by making the procedural measure of the right to information effective and proportionate, (27) while ensuring a balance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the proceedings.

36. Lastly, from a practical point of view, it should be noted that the information for which RÖSLE GROUP seeks corroborating evidence includes information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, stored, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for those goods.

37. As regards that information, and, in particular, as regards the quantities and the price paid and obtained for the goods, it is difficult to imagine that, in the contemplation of the EU legislature, it would be sufficient for an infringer or any third party referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48 to disclose only the information, in the sense of the data relating to that information, without providing supporting documents, such as order forms, receipts or invoices. From that perspective, and in particular given the high level of protection which the EU legislature sought to ensure by means of Directive 2004/48, it would be difficult to conceive of separating the provision of information on the extent of the infringement of an intellectual property right from the production of documents to support that information. Indeed, without documents to support the information provided, the holder of an intellectual property right that has been infringed would have no means of verifying whether that information is incorrect, imprecise or incomplete. In such circumstances, requiring the rightholder blindly to bring subsequent proceedings in order to obtain the production of supporting documents, with no evidence as to the accuracy of the information provided, would be unsatisfactory in the light of that high level of protection of intellectual property rights provided for by Directive 2004/48.

38. For all the foregoing reasons, I consider that the question referred for a preliminary ruling in the present case should be answered in the affirmative. In particular, Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that, in response to a request of the holder of an intellectual property right for the purposes of that article, it is necessary to provide not only the information referred to in that article, but also the relevant documents to confirm the accuracy and completeness of that information.

Conclusion

39. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice answer the question referred by the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic) as follows:

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

must be interpreted as meaning that the national court should be able, in response to a justified and proportionate request of the applicant, to order the infringer, or any other person referred to in that article, not only to provide the information referred to therein, but also to demonstrate the accuracy and completeness of that information by providing the applicant with the relevant documents.

1 Original language: French.

2 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

3 In that regard, it must be acknowledged that the term ‘information’ is very broad and, in its usual sense, refers to any data, irrespective of the medium – including a written medium – on which it appears. Would it not therefore be artificial to distinguish, from a textual point of view, the information itself from the documents in which it appears? Moreover, in certain, admittedly very specific, contexts other than that of Directive 2004/48, such as in the field of competition law, concerning the collection of information relating to the subject matter of an investigation, the Court has held that, because of the generic nature of the term ‘information’ in Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L1, p.1), that provision applied without distinction both to the category of ‘indicia’ and to that of ‘evidence’ (judgment of 9 March 2023, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission, C‑693/20 P, EU:C:2023:172, paragraphs 103 to 108).

4 Judgment of 27 April 2023, Castorama Polska and Knor (C‑628/21, ‘the judgment in Knor’, EU:C:2023:342, paragraphs 40 and 45).

5 See judgment of 18 January 2017, NEW WAVE CZ (C‑427/15, EU:C:2017:18, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).

6 According to settled case-law, when interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see the judgment in Knor, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

7 As regards the [French] term ‘précis’ [‘precise’] being synonymous with the [French] term ‘exact’ [‘accurate’] see the Centre national de ressources textuelles et lexicales (CNRTL), https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/pr%C3%A9cis.

8 See, to that effect, the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 November 2017, Guidance on certain aspects of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (COM(2017) 708 final, p. 29).

The use of the term ‘information’ in that communication, in the context of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/48, seems to me to support the idea that it is not appropriate for information and evidence to be strictly separated. There is nothing to prevent the information from being included in that evidence.

9 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 22 December 2010 on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (SEC(2010) 1589 final, p. 11).

10 Recital 21, read in conjunction with recital 20, of Directive 2004/48.

11 According to recital 14 of Directive 2004/48, ‘Acts carried out on a commercial scale are those carried out for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage; this would normally exclude acts carried out by end consumers acting in good faith’.

12 Judgment of 17 June 2021, M.I.C.M. (C‑597/19, EU:C:2021:492, paragraphs 84 and 96).

13 Judgment of 18 January 2017, NEW WAVE CZ, (C‑427/15, EU:C:2017:18, paragraph 28).

14 According to that provision, first, the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of the intellectual property rights, which include the right to information referred to in Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, must be fair and equitable and must not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time limits or unwarranted delays (paragraph 1). Secondly, those measures, procedures and remedies must also be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse (paragraph 2).

15 In that regard, it would not strike me as problematic if, on the other hand, the costs may be higher for the infringer or any third party involved in the infringement, in so far as those costs may be perceived as a deterrent against infringements of intellectual property rights, in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48.

16 See recital 10 of Directive 2004/48 and judgment of 18 December 2019, IT Development (C‑666/18, EU:C:2019:1099, paragraph 38).

17 Judgment of 9 July 2020, Constantin Film Verleih (C‑264/19, EU:C:2020:542, paragraph 36).

18 Recital 1 of Directive 2004/48.

19 Recital 3 of Directive 2004/48.

20 Article 1 of Directive 2004/48.

21 See judgment of 16 July 2015, Diageo Brands (C‑681/13, EU:C:2015:471, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).

22 See, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Coty Germany (C‑580/13, EU:C:2015:243, point 24).

23 The judgment in Knor (paragraphs 46, 47 and 51).

24 Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48.

25 See the judgment in Knor (paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

26 See judgment of 6 November 2018, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission, Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and Commission v Ferracci (C‑622/16 P to C‑624/16 P, EU:C:2018:873, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).

27 Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48.

Opinion of Advocate General Norkus delivered on 7 May 2026.###

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude