|
A work of art or just the cutest cat ever? Gigi portrayed while surely contemplating Christie's, auctions and the CJEU |
This Kat has just learned
of a new reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU), which only at first sight seems concerned with a niche
area of the law, this being the artist's resale right and Directive
2001/84/EC (the Resale Right Directive).
Case
C-41/14 Christie's France is an important case,
whose implications will go far beyond the sole area of payment of
the resale right royalty on the artist's resale right.
What the French Court of
Cassation is in fact asking is whether contracts can derogate from obligations
set at the level of EU directives.
Article 1
of the Resale Right Directive sets in fact an obligation for Member States to
provide for the benefit of the author of an original work of art an
inalienable, unwaivable resale right. This consists of the right to
receive a royalty based on the sale price obtained for any resale of the work,
subsequent to the first transfer of the work by the author.
Article 1(4) further states that:
"The royalty shall be payable by the seller.
Member States may provide that one of the natural or legal persons referred to
in paragraph 2 [sellers, buyers or intermediaries art market professionals, such as
salesrooms, art galleries and, in general, any dealers in works of art] other than [that's the important bit] the seller shall alone be liable or shall share liability
with the seller for payment of the royalty."
|
Cat and Christie reference |
As
explained by EU
Law Radar, Christie's France decided to change its terms and conditions so that the buyer,
and not the seller, became liable to pay the royalty.
The issue thus
became: can a contract derogate from the seller’s obligation to pay the royalty
that is enshrined in the Directive?
The following
is the question that the French court referred to the CJEU:
"Must the rule laid down by Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC ... on
the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art,
which makes the seller responsible for payment of the royalty, be interpreted
as meaning that the seller is required definitively to bear the cost thereof
without any derogation by agreement's being possible?"
If you would like to comment on this case you
can do so on this blog and also by emailing policy@ipo.gov.uk by
12 March 2014 [that's next Wednesday, so: hurry up!].
Surely the answer is No based on the second sentence, which allows someone other than the seller to be solely responsible? I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise ...
ReplyDelete