Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 29 November 1988
1 Original language: French.
2 Judgment of 20 January 1981 in Joined Cases 55 and 57/80 Musikvertrieb Membran GmbH and Another v GEMA [1981] ECR 147 paragraph 8.
3 Ibid., paragraph 9.
4 Judgment of 8 June 1971 in Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v Metro-SB-Großmärkte GmbH 6 Co. KG [1971] ECR 487, paragraph II.
5 Judgment of 6 October 1982 in Case 262/81 Coditei SA and Others v Ciné-Vog Bims SA and Others [1982) ECR 3381. paragraph 10.
6 Joined Cases 55 and 57/80 Musikverlrieh Membran v GEMA, cited above, paragraph 12.
7 Ibid., paragraph 13.
8 Judgment of 14 September 1982 in Case 144/81 Keurkoop BV\Nancy Kean Gifts SK[1982] ECR 2853, paragraph 14 (my emphasis).
9 See in particular the judgment in Coditei II, cited above, and the judgment of 18 March 1980 in Coditel /[1980] ECR 881.
10 Case 144/81 Keurkoop, cited above, paragraph 18.
11 Judgment of 13 July 1966 in Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten Sàrl and Grundig-Verkaitfs-GmbH v Commission [1966] ECR 299; judgment of 29 February 1968 in Case 24/67 Parke Davis & Co. v Centra/arm [1968] ECR 55.
12 Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon, cited above; judgment of 31 October 1974 in Case 15/74 Centra/arm BV and Another v Sterling Drug Inc., [1974] ECR 1147; judgment of 31 October 1974 in Case 16/74 Centrafarm BV v Winthrop BV [1974] ECR 1183.
13 Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon, cited above.
14 Casc 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon [1971] at p. 508.
15 Judgment of 9 July 1985 in Case 19/84 Pharmon SKv Hoechst AG [1985] ECR 2281, paragraph 26 (my emphasis).
16 Case 262/81 Coditei v Ciné-Vog Films [1982], paragraph 11 at p. 3400 (my emphasis); see also Case 62/79 Coditei /, cited above, paragraph 12.
17 The sound recordings are at issue here only as goods and not as recordings; as regards the mechanical reproduction right relating to the latter aspect of records, see in particular the judgment of the Court of 9 April 1987 in Case 402/85 Basset v Sacem [1987] ECR 1747; on the distinction between records as goods and as recordings of performances, see more particularly M. A. Hermitte, Commentary on Basset, Clunet 1988, p. 535 et seq.
18 See ¡n particular Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon, cited above, paragraph 13; the judgment of 22 June 1976 in Case 119/75 Terrapin (Overseas) Ltd v Terranova Industrie C. A. Kapferer Õ Co. [1976] ECR 1039, paragraph 6; joined Cases 55 and 57/80 Musikvertrieb Membran, cited above, paragraph 15; the judgment of 14 July 1981 in Case 187/80 Merck & Co. Inc. v Stephar BV and Another (1981) ECR 2063, paragraph 12, and Case 19/84 Pharmon, cited above, paragraph 22.
19 Case 187/80 Merck v Stephar, cited above, paragraph 11.
20 Case 19/84 Pharmon v Hoechst, cited above, paragraph 25 (my emphasis).
21 Ibid., paragraph 29.
22 Opinion of Mr Advócale General Mancini in Case 19/84 Pharmon v Hoechst [ 1985], cited above, at p. 2288.
23 Joined Cases 55 and 57/80 Mitiikvertreb Membran v GEMA [1981], cited above, paragraph 15 at p 163 (my emphasis)
24 Ibid., paragraph 18 (m> emphasis)
25 Case 15/74 Centrafarm v Sterling Drug, cited above [1974] paragraph 11 at p 1162 (my emphasis)
26 Paragraph 29 of the Literalur-Urhebergesetz of 19 June 1901, Retcbsgeietzblatl, p. 1227. as amended by the amending provisions published in the Reicbigesetzblall of 13 December 1934, II, p. 1359. I would also point out that Article 14 of the International Convention on the protection of performing artists, sound-recording producers and broadcasters of 26 October 1961 provides thai the duration of the protection to be granted is not to be less than a period of 20 years.