Members may be aware from a recent communication from IMRO that they are undertaking a Retail Tariff Customer Consultation. As members are well aware CSNA has made numerous communications regarding the unfair conditions of IMRO and PPI through the dual licence format.
We received communication from the Retail Forum regarding sharing information on the consultation with our members. We were confused as to why the Department would be forwarding the communication from a non-statutory private company. We have made our observations very clear to the Department from the below communication that we recently made to them.
The State is not a beneficiary of any part of the “licence” fees, and did not intervene with the creation of the “Dual licence ” system where IMRO and another private company, PPI agreed to a shared collection of royalties from those businesses they previously noted as having a liability to pay.
The European Court of Justice issued a binding judgement in 2013 regarding such fees as collected by the Italian equivalent of PPI, a judgement that several retailers were successfully able to cite when sued.
IMRO is not a State body, they previously attempted to persuade the Department to allow them access to a payment portal, you really need to limit Consultation notifications to those that have a Statutory basis.
We note an article from Finn Solicitors on a ruling that they were successful in against PPI on behalf of a retailer – read more here Denis I Finn win landmark copyright decision – Denis I Finn Solicitors
