الجمهورية التشيكية

Copyright Act, Art. 40(1)(c); Civil Code, Arts. 8, 614; Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms, Art. 11; Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 1; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17(2); Directive 2004/48/EC, Art. 8

The plaintiff is an artist specializing in engraved glass. The defendants infringed his copyright in works of applied art in the form of engraved decorative designs.

The plaintiff requested that the defendants to be ordered to provide the plaintiff with information on the number of infringing products manufactured and sold and information on the amount of money received for these sold products, according to the Art. 40(1)(c) of the Copyright Act (Art. 8 of the Directive 2004/48/EC). The defendants claimed in their defence that such a right was prescribed because of the expiry of a period of time provided for in the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court ruled that since the right of property is not subject to prescription under Art. 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms and Art. 614 of the Civil Code, which includes also intellectual property rights, thus, copyright as one of the intellectual property rights is not subject to prescription as well. For this reason, the rights (claims) provided for to enforce (defend) the copyright as such are also not subject to prescription. Therefore, just as the rights to request injunctions and corrective measures are not subject to prescription, neither is the right of information. Unlike, the obligations arising from the exercise of copyright, whether obligations arising from a contract (license agreement), obligations ex lege (right to payment of fair compensation) or obligations arising from pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage or unjust enrichment, are subject to a prescription period.

However, this does not imply that the right of information can be successfully exercised without any time limit. The author cannot claim information which (already) cannot serve to the effective protection of his copyright according the given circumstances. Similarly, this right may not be exercised in violation of the general principle of private law that the apparent misuse of private rights does not give rise to legal protection under Section 8 of the Civil Code.