La CEDU 01.09.2022, applic. n. 885/12, Safarov c. Azerbaijan, conferma che il diritto di autore rientra nella preevisione che tutela il diritto di proprietà , collocata nell’art. 1 del (primo) protocollo, rubricato <protezione della proprietà>.
Il cui testo (v.lo nel sito della Corte) è: << Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties >>.
Questo il passaggio: <<30. The Court reiterates that protection of intellectual property rights, including the protection of copyright, falls within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 72, ECHR 2007‑I, and SIA AKKA/LAA v. Latvia, no. 562/05, § 41, 12 July 2016). In the present case, the applicant was the author of the book in question and benefitted from protection of copyright under domestic law. This fact was never contested by the domestic courts (compare Balan v. Moldova, no. 19247/03, § 34, 29 January 2008, and Kamoy Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılık ve Organizasyon A.Ş. v. Turkey, no. 19965/06, § 37, 16 April 2019). Therefore, the applicant had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.>>
Inoltre per la Corte l’esaurimento di applica solo agli oggetti corproali <<35. As to Article 15.3 of the Law on Copyright, referred to by the Supreme Court, the Court observes that that provision concerned the rule of exhaustion of right to distribution. As the wording of that provision and Agreed statement concerning Article 6 of the WIPO Copyright Convention suggest (see paragraphs 15 and 23 above), that rule referred to lawfully published and fixed copies of works which were put into circulation by sale as tangible objects>>. Affermazione frettolosa, dimentica dell’opposta posizione, sostenuta con diversi argomenti.
(segnalazione di Eleonora Rosati, in IPKaT del 04.09.2022)