{"id":102382,"date":"2026-03-03T09:39:03","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T08:39:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=102382"},"modified":"2026-03-03T11:39:26","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T10:39:26","slug":"do-companies-also-have-to-pay-a-private-copy-fee-on-their-professional-computers-and-storage-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/moeten-bedrijven-ook-een-privekopie-vergoeding-betalen-op-hun-professionele-computers-en-opslagmedia\/","title":{"rendered":"Do companies also have to pay a private copy levy on their professional computers and storage media?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In principle, the mandatory fee for private copying (known as the private copy levy) is charged on all devices and storage media placed on the market, regardless of the purchaser. This is also true when you as a company purchase IT equipment such as laptops or hard drives. According to the Court of Justice (C-822\/24, Bluechip<\/em><\/a>) this levy is lawful, even in the case of sales to professional users, unless it is effectively demonstrated that the devices are not used for private copying. In Belgium, the Royal Decree of October 18, 2013<\/a> provides comprehensive mechanisms for exemption and reimbursement, enabling companies that use this equipment exclusively for professional purposes to avoid or recover the levy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Bluechip case involved a dispute between a German manufacturer and importer of computers and ZP\u00dc, the German management company collecting the private copying levy. Bluechip sold storage media exclusively to professional end customers and refused to pay the private copying levy. However, the German court reasoned that devices in a business context could still be used by natural persons (e.g. employees) to copy copyrighted material in private.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, the preliminary question to the ECJ was whether the European Copyright Directive (2001\/29\/EC<\/a>) allows states to impose this levy on vendors in a business-to-business (B2B) environment, subject to proof to the contrary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision of the Court of Justice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the ruling of January 15, 2026, the Court of Justice ruled that EU law does not in principle preclude national legislation requiring producers, importers and distributors to pay the private copying levy even when they sell storage media to professional end users. The Court recognizes that in practice it is extremely difficult to determine in advance exactly who the end user is and what exactly the device will be used for. A legal, rebuttable presumption that equipment will also be used for private purposes is therefore permissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To this, however, the Court attaches strict conditions. Such arrangements must be justified by end-user identification problems. In addition, sellers (and end users) must have the possibility to be exempted from payment or to claim an effective refund if they prove that the storage media are not (or to a negligible extent) used by natural persons for private copying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal analysis and Belgian regulations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Copyright<\/a> grants authors and other rightholders the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of their works (Article XI. 165, \u00a71 CEL<\/a>). However, based on Directive 2001\/29\/EC, member states can provide an exception for reproductions made by a natural person for private use without a commercial purpose (Article XI.190, 9\u00b0 CEL).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In return for this \u201cprivate copy exception,\u201d the rightholders must receive fair compensation (Art. XI.229 CEL). Since it is practically impossible to knock on the door of every individual citizen who makes a copy, this compensation is collected from the producers, importers and distributors of the devices and carriers (such as laptops, tablets, USB sticks and hard disks) with which those copies can be made. They then pass on this cost in the selling price to the end user.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the Belgian legal system, this ruling represents an important validation of the system in place. The Belgian legislator had already anticipated these European requirements in the Royal Decree on the right to remuneration for private copying of Oct. 18, 2013<\/a>. Indeed, Chapter 6 of this RD expressly provides for a fine-grained and conclusive regime of reimbursement and exemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand, professional users who acquire devices from an \u201cexempted contribution payer\u201d can benefit from an ex ante exemption through a simple declaration on honor that the carriers and devices will only be subject to professional use (article 8\/1 RD). On the other hand, Article 8 RD provides for an efficient ex post recovery mechanism at the Belgian management company Auvibel<\/a>, if the levy was initially collected. This Belgian implementation thus seamlessly meets the functionality and proportionality required by the European Court of Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The confirmation by the Court of Justice combined with Belgian law has clear, practical implications for the various market players:<\/p>\n\n\n\n