The claimant, Gj.G., a university lecturer and author of a book published in 2002 by a publishing house, claims that the defendant, Q.L., also a lecturer in the same field, published in 2006 a series of lectures bearing the same title and containing content similar to his book, thereby infringing copyright. Q.L.’s book was published by a company and distributed among students for several years without authorization. The Albanian Copyright Office, involved in the proceedings as a third party, has confirmed the existence of a copyright infringement.
The Tirana District Court partially upheld the claim, ordering the defendant Q.L. to pay the amount of 52,020 ALL as material compensation in favor of the claimant Gj.G., while rejecting the request for moral damages and the allegation of joint liability of the other defendants. The Court found that there had been an infringement of copyright, in accordance with Article 7 of Law no. 9380/2005, since the work published by the defendant was a slightly altered copy of the claimant’s book. In its interpretation, the Court emphasized that the author is entitled to compensation for any use of the work, even if he is not the publisher. The material damage was calculated based on the profit derived from the use of the work. The request for moral damage was dismissed as no harm to the claimant’s honor or personality was proven, and the lawsuit was considered not to be time-barred, as it was filed within the three-year statutory period.
The Tirana Court of Appeals decided to annul the decision and return the case for retrial, considering that the investigation had not been comprehensive and that joinder of parties had not been properly established, as the publishing house had not been summoned as a third party. The Court also noted the absence of professional expertise in copyright matters, as required by the relevant secondary legislation.
The High Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals, reasoning that it was not based on any ground of nullity under Article 467 of the Civil Procedure Code. It found that the Court of Appeals had full jurisdiction to examine the merits of the case and that a return for retrial was not justified, since the evidence was not difficult to
administer. The Court emphasized that joinder with the publishing house was not mandatory and that its absence did not constitute a ground for nullity. Furthermore, it reaffirmed copyright as a personal right of the claimant, exercisable even in the absence of the publisher.
The case was remitted for re-examination to the Court of Appeals of General Jurisdiction with a different panel.
