Ladies and gentlemen,
In the last few days, a misleading publication has been circulating that there is allegedly a court decision according to which no fees are due to GEA for past years. It bears the absolutely misleading title ” Great judicial victory PASKKEDI against GEA: END in ACTIONS with charges from previous years for playing music from stores! And it is enough to read the decision to which he refers, to find out that it is false. The decision of the Court explicitly refers to an action precisely to determine the remuneration for past years! In any case, despite any legal errors, in accordance with this decision, the legal claim of GEA continues to exist and to be claimed for each use.
As you already know, GEA is the single organization for the collective management and collection of reasonable remuneration for the neighbouring right due to the use of recorded music according to art. 49 par. 1 ν. 2121/1993, and the only one responsible for collecting this fee. THE GEA operates legally with the permission of Mr. Minister of Culture [Government Gazette BD 3245 / 30.12.2011] and already thousands of companies across the country are contracting with him to pay the reasonable fee and to meet their obligation for all the use they have made.
On October 24, 2018 on the website www.paskedi.gr , which is maintained by the professional association PASKKEDI (Panhellenic Association of Shops and Consumers of Catering and Entertainment), it posted a defamatory and misleading article entitled: «Big court victory PASKKEDI against GEA: END of ACTIONS with charges from previous years for playing music from stores!». The article itself refers to the text of this decision via a link. In fact, its number has been deducted from it. In any case, it is clear from the published text that, on the one hand, it concerns an application for interim determination through the procedure of precautionary measures and not a lawsuit, and on the other hand, this decision itself explicitly states that it is possible to determine the remuneration for previous years. contrary to the established case law of our courts, that this must be final and in the procedure of the action before the competent court. That is, the Court itself, which invokes PASKKEDI, considers that the request for determination in this case must be implemented through a lawsuit. Not that there is supposedly no claim for past uses. In this respect, the post is untrue and misleading, capable of creating false impressions, such as those expressed by some of you when contacting GEA.
Otherwise, from a legal point of view, the decision is wrong because it applies par. 6 of art. 22 ν. 4481/2017, which concerns the copyright (lyricists and composers), and not par. 7 relating specifically to family law. Our powers as they arise from article 49 par. 1 of N. 2121/93 are under the status of a legal license and only a reasonable fee is due as a consideration for the use. It does not mean, therefore, a requirement to pay the reasonable remuneration of article 49 par. 1 of N. 2121/93 before the use, because there is no use, and for this reason the legislator provided the special case of the procedure of art. 22 par. 7 Ν. 4481/2017 (and previously of article 49 par. 1 of Law 2121/93). A similar confusion with the said decision had been recorded in the past in the also marginal case of no. 2AM / 2015 of the Single Member Court of First Instance of Syros, which had been criticized by the theory and in fact the Court of First Instance of Syros then corrected its case law and normally awards the fees and of course for all years of use, like all courts in the country.
For the above reasons, we inform you that the publication of PASKKEDI is manifestly misleading, a relevant out-of-court settlement has already been sent to it, and the legal claim of GEA continues to exist and be claimed.