In a market sector experiencing strong growth and undergoing stabilization, the AGCOM resolution provides operational guidance of reference in managing relationships between hotel enterprises and collecting entities operating in the copyright sector.

The Lazio Administrative Court has rejected […] appeal challenging AGCOM’s (Autorità Garante per le Comunicazioni) resolution 96/24/CONS. The judgment confirms not only AGCOM’s finding of […] violation of art. 22, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of Legislative Decree 35/2017, but above all the correctness, logic and rationality of the criteria indicated by AGCOM in the challenged resolution.

The Lazio Administrative Court confirms the correctness and rationality of AGCOM’s criteria (i.e. the actual use of the repertoire calculated with respect to broadcasters, or alternatively, the revenue collected in the radio-television broadcasting sector) which thus anchor the determination of tariffs to the actual representativeness of the entities. This is an unprecedented and important precedent for managing relationships between hotel enterprises and collecting entities operating in the market, particularly in the procedure for negotiating compensation. The Lazio Administrative Court states: “It is therefore noted the substantial correctness of the Authority’s evaluation regarding the minimum parameters to be provided to contractual counterparties for the correct conduct of negotiations following the adoption of the resolution, necessary to provide elements as objective as possible and to allow negotiations to resume as quickly as possible, in the primary interest of […] and its principals and rightholders.” Furthermore, the Resolution is the result of “an intervention by the Authority that is entirely legitimate, as it was necessary, precisely in the presence of […] conduct aimed at imposing tariffs for the use of copyright, applicable to hotels, communicated in disregard of the principles of clarity, fairness, objectivity and reasonableness applicable in this case pursuant to art. 22 of Legislative Decree 35/2017, as the appellant presented its own repertoire solely on the basis of the number of rightholders intermediated by it, without providing any objective parameter to allow users to understand the criteria underlying the calculation of representativeness.“

The Court also confirms AICA’s legitimacy, as a trade association, to negotiate with collective management organizations on the basis that “the obligation to follow the principles of good faith in the exchange of information, fairness and non-discrimination, simplicity and clarity referred to in art. 22 of the aforementioned Legislative Decree must also be applied to negotiations between collective management organizations and trade associations, since the agreements signed by individual facilities must comply with the conditions agreed upon by the trade association with the collective management organization.”