The paper analyses the Advocate General’s opinion presented in the Stichting Leenrecht case (Case-174/15), inter alia, in the light of the UsedSoft and Allposters cases ( Case C-128/2011 and Case C-419/13 ). On the bases of the analysis it seems that the AG’s legal arguments – on the basis of which he suggests that what is called „e-lending” is covered by the provisions of the Rental, Lending and Related Rights Directive on lending – are badly founded. As regards the AG’s legal-political arguments stressing the importance of library services, it is pointed out that, although they are valid, also a number of other public and private interests should be taken into account to consider whether or not there may be a need for legislative intervention concerning the complex issue and, if it may be the case, in which way.

In the short paper – based on an optimistic reading of the CJEU’s subsequent decisions on the concept and right of communication to the public – it is reviewed how the Court has made honest attempts to try to neutralize the negative effects of the badly founded „new public” criterion (adopted as a result of certain defective aspects of the current preliminary rulings system that do not guarantee fully and duly informed judgments).

This first commentary was published on my website on July 3, 2012, immediately after the Beijing Diplomatic Conference where the BTAP was adoped. It is uploaded again now that the website has been re-established after its recent collapse.