ECJ - C-201/13 – an autonomous concept of what constitutes a parody

ECJ - C-201/13 – an autonomous concept of what constitutes a parody

ECJ - C-201/13 – an autonomous concept of what constitutes a parody

04.09.2014 BE law

On September 3, 2014, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued a judgment in response to a request from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (“Court of Appeal, Brussels”) for a preliminary ruling on three questions regarding the scope of a “parody” as articulated in article 5, par. 3, sub k, of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (the “InfoSoc Directive”).

Under the InfoSoc Directive, Member States are allowed to exempt a party from obtaining an author’s consent for the use of the author’s work, under the condition the work is used for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche. Belgium has decided to allow such exception, which can be found in article 22, §1, 6° Law of June 30, 1994, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, as amended by the Law of April 3, 1995 (“Belgian Copyright Act” or “BCA”).

In 2011, Mr. Deckmyn, a member of the Vlaams Belang (a Flemish political party), illustrated the cover page of a political calendar by using a drawing resembling a famous Spike and Suzy’s comic book (Suske en Wiske in Dutch or Bob et Bobette in French) without the rightholders’ consent, being under the impression that he handled within the boundaries of the parody-exception as defined in article 22, §1, 6° BCA. The rightholders asserted in front of the Court of Appeal, Brussel, that the political calendar did not fulfill the required conditions and that it aimed to communicate a discriminatory message to the public. 

Considering the fact that there was no clear definition for what constituted a “parody”, the Court of Appeal, Brussel decided to obtain clarification from the ECJ on the conditions a work must fulfil to fall under the InfoSoc Directive’s parody-exception. 

The ECJ starts off by clarifying that a ‘parody’, which appears in a provision of a directive that does not contain any reference to national laws, must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law, which is interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union. The court further explains that the optional nature of the parody-exception does not mean Member States can interpret the limits of such exception in an unharmonised manner. 

Subsequently, the ECJ ruled that, considering the absence of a definition in the InfoSoc Directive, the meaning and scope of a parody must be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language. According to the ECJ, in everyday language, the essential characteristics of a parody are, “first, to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and, secondly, to constitute an expression of humor or mockery”

In Belgium, in absence of any definition, the case law has developed cumulative conditions that must be fulfilled in order to make use of the parody-exception on basis of article 22 BCA (see for example, in a similar case, Hof van Beroep te Gent (“Court of Appeal, Ghent”), 3 januari 2011 (Lucky Luke), I.R.D.I 2011, p.15). But, according to the ECJ, the scope of Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive must not be restricted by conditions which did not derivate from the usual meaning of the term ‘parody’ or from the language of the InfoSoc Directive, such as, for example, the parody’s own original character as required in the above-mentioned case. It remains uncertain which impact the ECJ decision will have on the cumulative conditions from Belgian case law. 

Nonetheless, the ECJ states that when determining the applicability of the parody-exception under article 5, par. 3, sub k, of the InfoSoc Directive, it is for the Member States’ courts (in this case the Court of Appeal, Brussels) to strike a “fair balance” between the authors’ rights and interests, and the rights of those who seek to make use of copyrighted works, by taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including for example, the fact that the parody conveys a discriminatory message which has the effect of associating the protected work with such a message.


The case (C-201/13) can be found on

All rights reserved. Care has been taken to ensure that the content of this e-bulletin is as accurate as possible. However the accuracy and completeness of the information in this e-bulletin, largely based upon third party sources, cannot be guaranteed. The materials contained in this e-bulletin have been prepared and provided by Stibbe for information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice and readers should not act upon the information contained in this e-bulletin without consulting legal counsel. Consultation of this e-bulletin will not create an attorney-client relationship between Stibbe and the reader. The e-bulletin may be used only for personal use and all other uses are prohibited.


Related news

29.01.2019 NL law
Inwerkingtreding Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen

Short Reads - Op 23 oktober 2018 is de Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen in werking getreden. Deze wet strekt tot implementatie van de Richtlijn bedrijfsgeheimen (2016/943/EU) en biedt houders van niet-openbaar gemaakte knowhow en bedrijfsinformatie (bedrijfsgeheimen) verschillende mogelijkheden om maatregelen te treffen tegen het onrechtmatig verkrijgen, gebruiken of openbaar maken van bedrijfsgeheimen.

Read more

21.03.2019 EU law
Ignace Vernimme, Floris ten Have and Manuel Campolini are speakers during the Legal Affairs Conference.

Speaking slot - Ignace Vernimme, IP Partner at Stibbe Brussels, moderates a roundtable discussion on 'second medical use patents'. Manuel Campolini, of-counsel at Stibbe Brussels, co-moderates this session. Floris ten Have, Competition and Regulation Partner at Stibbe Amsterdam, chairs a session on opportunities and challenges for biosimilar medicine developers.

Read more

20.11.2018 NL law
Seminar 'Personal data from a broader perspective: overlap inside and outside the privacy domain'

Seminar - On 20 November 2018, Stibbe will host a seminar on privacy. Several Stibbe lawyers will discuss personal data from a broader perspective and the overlap that can occur inside and outside the legal privacy domain.

Read more

21.03.2019 NL law
15 aspects of Brexit you did not know

Short Reads - A Brexit without a deal, or with a deal that does not cover all relevant aspects, is still a potential scenario. We have highlighted a number of unexpected legal consequences of Brexit in such a no deal or incomplete deal scenario.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring