On 19 June 2007 in an unprecedented move the Lithuanian Supreme Court has postponed the decision in the key case (LATGA-A v. UAB Trajektorija), where the future of media levies (copyright levies) in Lithuania is being decided

On 19 June 2007 in an unprecedented move the Lithuanian Supreme Court has postponed the decision in the key case (LATGA-A v. UAB Trajektorija), where the future of media levies (copyright levies) in Lithuania is being decided

The two year old case was accepted for cassation by the Lithuanian Supreme Court in January 2007, after lower courts reached conflicting decisions. The decision of the Lithuanian Supreme Court had to be taken by 19 June 2007, however the court postponed the decision until Fall 2007 citing “extreme complexity and novelty of the case”.

The case deals with the scope of copyright levies in Lithuania – in particular the scope of the media that is taxed, as well as market distortions caused by levies on media imposed in several EU countries (i.e. when media levied in one EU country is carried and sold in the other EU country).

The plaintiff of the case - main Lithuanian collecting society - LATGA-A argues that IT industry shall be obliged to pay copyright levies (6% on the import/wholesale price of all recordable media) regardless of the actual purpose of such media (e.g. even in cases, where the non-private use may be conclusively demonstrated). Additionally it asks the court to approve that levies on the media carried into Lithuania from other EU countries shall be paid regardless of the imposing of similar levies in the country of origin.

The defendant (UAB Trajektorija) argues that copyright levies shall be imposed only onto media, which is intended for private copying, as opposed to all media, which is sold in Lithuania. Additional argument is made that only import of media into Lithuania from non-EU countries shall be taxed with copyright levy, in order to avoid double taxation in several EU countries.

IRII believes that the whole case is brought by the purely economic interest of the collecting societies, driven by income maximization and failure to recognize the realities of the networked society, therefore IRII continues to support the case of the defendant.