Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat, Case C‑271/10, 30 June 2011, here.
para 32: "the question whether that remuneration is equitable in character has to be assessed, in particular, inthe light of the value of the use of a protected work in trade"
however (para 33) "lending does not have a direct or indirect economic or commercial character. In those circumstances, the use of a protected work in the event of public lending cannot be assessed in the light of its value in trade. Consequently, the amount of the remuneration will necessarily be less than that which corresponds to equitable remuneration or may even be fixed on a flat-rate basis in order to compensate for the act of making available all the protected works concerned"
para 34: "capable of allowing authors to receive an adequate income. Its amount cannot therefore be purely symbolic"
para 37" the determination of the amount of that remuneration cannot be completely dissociated from the elements which constitute that harm"..."should take account of the extent to which those works are made available"
para 38: "the higher the number of protected works made available by a public lending establishment, the greater will be the prejudice to copyright. It follows that the amount of remuneration to be paid by such an establishment should take account of the number of works made available to the public and, consequently, that large public lending establishments should pay a greater level of remuneration than smaller establishments"
para 39: "Furthermore, the relevant public, namely the number of borrowers registered with a lending establishment, is also equally relevant. The greater the number of persons having access to the protected works, the greater will be the prejudice to authors’ rights. It follows that the amount of remuneration to be paid to authors should be determined by also taking into account the number of borrowers registered with that establishment."
