The Court of Appeal has dismissed Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited’s appeal against declarations made in a preliminary hearing over performers’ rights to share in remuneration from sound recordings. It also dismissed PPI’s appeal against the High Court costs order. The underlying contractual dispute between PPI and Recorded Artists Actors Performers Limited (RAAP) remains unresolved.
The proceedings concern a 2002 agreement between the two collective management organisations. RAAP represents performers; PPI represents producers of sound recordings. Their dispute includes whether certain performers from outside the European Economic Area can participate in the distribution of licence fees. The High Court directed a preliminary hearing on RAAP’s claims for declarations about the EU Rental and Lending Rights Directive and Ireland’s Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000.
After the High Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the CJEU ruled in September 2020 that Article 8(2) of the Directive precludes excluding performers who are nationals of non-EEA states, subject to the exceptions it identified. The High Court subsequently declared that the Directive required equitable remuneration for performers and producers covered by the ruling, and that Irish law had not properly transposed the Directive to the extent that it excluded those performers.
PPI argued on appeal that a declaration about the Directive should not have been made against it as a private party, because a directive cannot impose obligations directly between private parties. It also sought a qualification stating that any new obligation on PPI would depend on future legislation and apply prospectively. PPI further argued that the costs of the preliminary proceedings should fall on the State defendants alone.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that the declaration addressed the law and that RAAP had a present interest in it, including in the context of negotiating future arrangements. The court stressed that the preliminary hearing did not decide the implications of the declarations for the parties’ contractual dispute. Those remaining issues had not been argued or determined, and the court made no finding on whether RAAP’s contract claims would succeed. It also declined to add PPI’s proposed qualification, which would have addressed matters beyond the preliminary issues.
The court affirmed the High Court’s declarations and dismissed PPI’s costs appeal, leaving in place the order awarding RAAP the costs of the preliminary hearing, CJEU reference and related High Court hearing against PPI and the State defendants jointly and severally. It also gave a provisional view that the respondents should receive the costs of the appeal, with any request for a different costs order to be made within seven days.