The European Court of Justice (CJEU) is currently considering several questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court. These questions relate not only to fixed book prices in cross-border trade, but now also cover aspects of EU competition law, freedom of information and expression, and the question of whether a national cultural promotion measure such as fixed book prices amounts to a (prohibited) cartel agreement.

The questions referred pose a massive threat to fixed book prices in Germany, but also to the entire European sector and in the Member States, and equally jeopardise the future of authors whose income depends directly on the fixed price of a book.

CJEU decisions, which have implications for, for example, business activities or cultural policies throughout the European sector, are being supported with the involvement of the EU member states. The member states’ permanent representatives in Brussels and their legal affairs departments were invited by the CJEU in the 4 Ob 40/25y (= CJEU C-302/25, Desch-Drexler)[1] case and in a follow-up, “C-780/25 Desch-Drexler II[2], to submit statements on behalf of their governments by ¾as far as we are aware¾ 26 March.

The EWC appeals to the Member States with Fixed Book Price Systems, o take a positive stance in defence of fixed book prices and thus to bring about a clear position on the part of the German Federal Government.

We would like to outline six excellent reasons for fixed book prices, with sources and evidence, and classify the questions to the ECJ in terms of legal considerations.

Six excellent reasons to promote and defend a fixed book price

1. FBP-regimes support the book sector; a fair remuneration for authors; and a national policy to protect cultural assets and bibliodiversity.

Fixed Book Price (FBP) systems effectively promote both book sales and title diversity. By securing a dense network of physical bookstores and encouraging non-price competition through service quality, FBP regulations directly support the cultural policy objectives of protecting books as cultural assets and ensuring affordable public access. FBP systems also lay the foundation for a transparent value chain in which authors, in particular, as the sources of this value, can negotiate and verify their royalties and remuneration fairly and transparently on the basis of fixed parameters. A narrow focus on bestsellers sold at dumping prices—often translations from the US—with a dominant presence is avoided, and instead a rich bibliodiversity ensured, which showcases the diversity of national literature.

2. FBP are a commitment to fairness: fixed book prices are authors’ main reference point for the receipt of appropriate and proportional remuneration, following EU law, re: CDSM Directive (EU) 2019/790.

As Authors are never paid directly for their work but receive only a calculated percentage of the revenues in return for their high private investment in the creation of a work, including research, working time, quality, etc., a fixed book price is a major pillar of fair pay towards the sources of the whole book value chain: the authors.

• Across Europe in countries with fixed book prices[1] the average royalty is between 8% and 12% of the net retail price of a hardcover book and 5%-8% of paperbacks. In countries without fixed book prices, royalties are paid from net proceeds, a system in which the economic risk and volatility of retailer discounts or low-price battles are outsourced to the authors.
• Only a permanently and stable fixed book price, for both print and e-book editions, guarantees a calculable remuneration. This also pays off subsequently – in more stable tax payments and contributions to social security and pension systems.
• The importance of Retail Price Maintenance (RPM) is resulting in greater solidarity between authors and within the book sector.

3. FBP leads to more sales, more bibliodiversity, and keeps book prices at affordable, consumer-friendly levels.

International comparisons[2] prove significantly higher sales volumes in countries with active FBP systems, and evidence-based studies show an FBP system maintains bibliodiversity at the same time.[3]^,[4] Digital commerce promotes mainstream bestsellers, while price regulation significantly increases the variety of titles offered.[5] Contrary to assumptions that vertical price restraints harm consumers, investigations, e g. by Gail and Klotz (2025), indicate that niche titles often become more affordable under FBP-regimes, while bestseller prices remain stable.[6]^{, 4}  The UK is an important book market, and it was once regulated by FBPs. The historic FBP agreement in the UK – the so-called Net Book Agreement (NBA) – was abrogated in the mid 1990s. A comparison of the period before and after the abrogation of the FBP system in the UK by Fishwick (2008)[7] showed, that in the period after the abrogation of the NBA, book prices rose more sharpy than the general price index (30.3 % vs. 18.8 %). Consequently, while a small selection of bestsellers became cheaper for the public due to deep retail discounts, most titles saw substantial price increases.

• Fixed book prices can help book customers to concentrate on the quality of a book instead of its price, thereby increasing overall welfare in this market.

4. FBP promotes access to knowledge, information, and promotes reading literacy

In many European countries an FBP-system was explicitly implemented to guarantee the accessibility of books to the general public. These systems, for example in Germany, aim to shield independent bookstores from the price pressure exerted by large corporations and to enable publishers to cross-subsidise less commercially viable works[8]. Another consequent effect of FBP-systems is the widespread prevalence of independent bookstores, particularly in rural areas, contributing to the stability of the employment market and the socio-cultural vitality of a region, with bookstores serving as a “third place” for encounters, exchanges, and debate.

5. Abolishing the FBP leads to “book deserts”, higher prices, and people giving up reading.

Countries that have abolished an FBP-system face a rapid dying of the independent book stores, leading to “book deserts”, while non-European online retail-monopolies, e g. (but not limited to) Amazon, serve the needs of the readers without a local bookstore. For instance, evidence provided by Fishwick shows that in the UK the market share of specialist bookshops in the UK declined

from 19.9 % in 1998 to 9.6 % in 2007, while market shares of supermarkets and online sellers increased from a joint market share of 4.3 % in 1998 to 31 % in 2007.[9]

• Brick-and-mortar booksellers serve as experts on certain topics, authors, genres, etc. so that they can specifically promote innovative titles, unknown talents, niche titles, and precious backlists. Due to limited selection of titles it can be more likely that consumers become aware of unknown, innovative titles in brick-and-mortar stores than in e-Commerce. This is also one of the valuable side-effects of an FBP regime.
• Likewise, books for Children and Young Adult profit from stable, affordable prices, as experiences e.g. in France[10] have proven, and foster literacy among minors.

Likewise, the empirical analysis by Götz (2026)[11] clarifies that the disappearance of local bookstores in Germany directly led to lower book sales, i.e., people reading less overall,[12] rather than simply switching to another retail channel. In fact, approximately 33 % of the decline in physical book sales (and 26 % when including e-books) can be attributed to these closures.

• When local bookshops close consumers buy fewer books or stop purchasing books at all.

6. FBP relieves the state’s budget significantly

Contemporary empirical evidence identifies Fixed Book Price systems as efficiency enhancing

instruments. By preventing market failure and securing a diverse literary landscape, FBP is the most highly effective policy tool for achieving cultural policy goals without the need for complex, expensive and bureaucratic subsidy systems (Götz, 2026).

**

 

From April on, the European Court of Justice will start its procedures to rule on the complex issue of the applicability of the country of origin principle in cross-border book trade, including the prohibition of price indication; e g. with an oral hearing (not scheduled yet).

Member States have until 26 March to respond to the invitation to submit their positions.

In addition to the request for a preliminary ruling in 4 Ob 40/25y[13] (= CJEU C-302/25, Desch-Drexler) on E-Commerce law, the Austrian Supreme Court submitted in addition the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the basis of the comments received in further proceedings under competition law concerning the Book Price Regulation Act 2023 (Austria) C-780/25 Desch-Drexler II:

1. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Art. 267 TFEU:
2. Does Union law, in particular Article 34 TFEU, preclude the application of national legislation such as Section 4(2) [Austrian FBP law] 2023 and § 5(3) [German FBP law], which requires retailers (including online retailers) selling books directly to consumers in another Member State to set and publish a retail price that is binding on final sellers and may not be lower than the retail price recommended by the publisher for the country of publication (minus any value added tax included therein and plus the value added tax applicable in the country of import) unless the publisher itself has recommended a final selling price for the country of import?
3. Is a national law on fixed book prices as described in point 1 compatible with Union law, in particular the last sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU?
4. Is a national law prohibiting the announcement of permitted discounts on the final retail price compatible with Union law, in particular with the provisions referred to in points 1 and 2 and Articles 11 and 16 Charter of Fundamental Rights?
5. Can such a national statutory fixed book price and/or prohibition on the announcement of price reductions be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest or under Article 36 TFEU or Article 167 TFEU, for example against the background of a public interest in the protection of cultural assets?

The answers to these questions will not only impact Austria (and Germany), but all the EU Member States, with respect to:

• free movement of goods (Art. 34 TFEU, Art 36 TFEU)
• prohibition of cartels (Art. 101 TFEU), and loyalty among MS (Art 4(3) TEU)
• freedom of expression and of information (Art. 11 CFR)[14]
• freedom to conduct a business (Art. 16 CFR).
• Public Interest / Consumer Protection vs. Protection of cultural assets

–and open the door to non-regulated price competition in the book trade. If the CJEU finds that EU law has been violated by FBP-system(s), the whole book sector as we know it in the European Sector, will change: and not for the better. The case itself as described by the lawyer of the defendant, who is commissioned by Amazon, can be found under the link in the footnote.[15] The dispute was triggered by the fact that Austria and Germany have different VAT rates on books and titles are offered (and advertised) at the same net price but at different gross sales prices. There was a difference of 70 cents when an Austrian customer ordered the book from a German retailer.

Legal positions on the abovementioned questions.

Please note that EWC provides this assessment to the best of our knowledge and belief and after consulting with lawyers, but that the legal experts of a Member States’ government may see things differently. 

1. Brief overview of related rulings, Charters, Laws and EU legislative Recitals in favour of the legal basis for a FBP-regime.

The case law of CJEU shows why FBP regimes have been considered legal so far:

• C-531/07 – Libro: The protection of books as cultural goods and assets can justify restrictions on prices according to Art. 34 TFEU[16] (para. 34).
• C-222/07 – UTECA: UNESCO convention on cultural diversity cited by the Court to argue that safeguarding cultural diversity can be an overriding requirement in the public interest.
• C-229/83 – Centres Leclerc: Protection of books as cultural goods and assets by implementing of fixed book price systems stands not in conflict with effet utile of anti-trust rules. Hence, there is no jeopardization of attainment of EU objectives (para. 20–para. 21 et seq. of this judgment (regarding Art. 34 & 36 TFEU) are no longer valid precedent, as C-531/07 departed from C-229/83 in that respect.
• C-254/87 – Syndicat des Libraires de Normandie/L’Aigle Distribution Centre Leclerc: affirming C-229/83 para. 20 (regarding anti-trust rules).
• C-9/99 – Echirolles: The legal obligation to fix a price for books is not in contravention of Art. 34 or Art. 101 TFEU.

Cultural diversity as a legitimate aim is anchored in the following legal instruments:

• 22 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
• 167 s. 4 TFEU
• Recital 63 E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC (EU))
• UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of October 20, 2005 (recognised by CJEU in C-222/07).

 

1. Onto the questions

Preamble: Please note that Questions 1 and 2 relate to the compatibility of German and EU competition law, Question 3 relates to freedom of information (here: announcements on discounts) and Austrian law, while Question 4 contrasts the rights of the general public interest with the protection of books as cultural assets in relation to EU law.  We will provide a brief general legal assessment under EU law perspectives, and focus on Questions 1, 2 and 4, as the ruling by the CJEU would effect all Member States, not only Germany. Please feel free to cite your own FBP-laws, e.g. on culture policy goals in combination with our EU assessments.

Regarding Question 3: This concerns the prohibition of announcing permitted price reductions, which refers to Austrian law ((Art 7(2) of the Austrian Fixed Book Price Act 2023), and, in our opinion, is based on practices in Austria (where price indications are very clearly regulated, by the way) and does not primarily refer to European law adjustments. If your view differs, please, do not hesitate to raise your concerns towards us.

1. Does Union law, in particular Article 34 TFEU,[17] preclude the application of national legislation such as Section 4(2) [Austrian FBP law] 2023 and § 5(3) [German FBP law], which requires retailers (including online retailers) selling books directly

   to consumers in another Member State to set and publish a retail price that is binding on final sellers and may not be lower than the retail price recommended by the publisher for the country of publication (minus any value added tax included therein and plus the value added tax applicable in the country of import) unless the publisher itself has recommended a final selling price for the country of import?

In question is the compatibility with EU competition law (Art. 34 TFEU) on the prohibition of quantitative restrictions, and if access to the market is restricted for foreign businesses.

Considerations:

a) Effect of removal of competition on prices through a national fixed book price regime onto national publications is the same for domestic and foreign booksellers. Although the vertical price fixing for books by national Book Price Fixing Acts eliminates intra-productprice competition at the level of book retailers, it does not affect the competitiveness of foreign mail-order booksellers and their market access opportunities any more than it does domestic brick-and-mortar or mail-order booksellers. In the absence of any restriction on market access for foreign mail-order booksellers, there is no restriction on the free movement of goods.
b) The situation for books is different than for prescription of meds and drugs (case C-148/15) because foreign booksellers have sufficient opportunities to enter the domestic market and compete on an equal footing, as evidenced by the substantial market shares of internet-based booksellers (including as an example, Amazon).

Result: No restriction of market access is detected. Laws on fixed book prices does not constitute a “measure having equivalent effect” to a quantitative import restriction but is compatible with the European freedom of movement of goods (Art. 34 TFEU). 

2. Is a national law on fixed book prices as described in point 1 compatible with Union law, in particular the last sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU?

In question is the compatibility between an EU treaty on loyalty and cooperation between Member States (Art. 4(3) TEU)[18] and EU competition law designed to prohibit (cross-border) price fixing among businesses or associations (Art. 101 TFEU).[19]

Considerations:

a) Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits any agreements or cartels between Member States that could disrupt free competition within the internal market. This European “antitrust ban” under Article 101 TFEU applies to privately operating companies, businesses, as well applies to associations. Direct application to sovereign measures such as fixed book price-regime installed by national law, does therefore not fall under the scope of Art. 101 TFEU. Fixed books prices are not a result of agreements between businesses or associations but result from the law itself.

b) The question here is whether a legal provision such as a law on fixed book prices has the same anti-competitive effects as such a (prohibited) cartel agreement between companies.

This issue is not expected to arise in the interpretation of the CJEU, but as a precaution, it is worth adding that the conditions of the four case groups acknowledged by the CJEU in its effet utile case law, are not met with fixed book price-systems (prescribing, facilitating, or reinforcing cartel agreements and transferring powers of intervention in the market to private economic operators). Statutory regulation of fixed book prices is not linked to anti-competitive behavior by companies but imposes certain obligations on them by virtue of public authority.

Result: There is no indication of price fixing among organisations or companies, as FBP are imposed by law, nor is there any violation of EU competition law. Loyalty treaties are not affected.

4. Can such a national statutory fixed book price and/or prohibition on the announcement of price reductions be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest or under Article 36 TFEU or Article 167 TFEU, for example against the background of a public interest in the protection of cultural assets?

In question is the compatibility between EU competition law related to the free movement of goods, and the protection of cultural assets, when key objectives for an independent  national culture policy are met by the fixed book price-law.

Considerations:

a) The protection of books as cultural assetsis recognised in the case law[20] of the European Court of Justice as a compelling interest of the public good which is, in principle, capable of justifying restrictions on the free movement of goods, and does not breach Art 36 TFEU; see also the Notice by the European Commission on (non-)application of Art. 36 TFEU (2021, C 100/38):

7.1.3. Protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value: A Member State’s duty to protect its national treasures and patrimony may justify measures which create obstacles to imports or exports.[21]

b) Fixed Book Price Systems aim to ensure the preservation of a wide range of books and their accessibility to a broad public, as well as to promote the existence of a large number of bookstores, to meet public interest with affordable access. These are key objectivesfor securing the position of books as cultural assets (see also “Six excellent reasons to promote and defend FBP”, Chapter II), and part of the cultural policy justification for fixed pricingin the public interest.

c) These assessments by the national legislature must be respected by the institutions of the European Union when applying European law. National legislators have flexibilityin defining and specifying the protection objective that is in the overriding public interest. This applies primarily to the determination of the level of protectionat which books are to be preserved as cultural assets, to which effect a fixed book price law can be introduced (or maintained).

d) The cross-cutting clause on cultural policy in Article 167(4) TFEU requires Member States to take account of the objectives of national cultural policy, which argues in favour of maintaining the FBP.

e) The supposed discount referred to here results from different VAT rates on books in Germany (7%) and Austria (10%). The recommended retail price for the title in question is the same in net terms but is more expensive due to the VAT rate in Austria (10%) and has been rounded up, which may have led to the misinterpretation of a ‘discount’ in this case.

Result: Fixed book prices are not contrary to the public interest – quite the opposite: as part of national, independent cultural policy, they protect cultural assets, and also guarantee diversity, accessibility and stable low prices.

EWC members responsible for this document: Nina George, Commissioner for Political Affairs; Maïa Bensimon,
Vice President. Editing: Conor Kostick, Board Member.

 

Sources

[1] https://europeanwriterscouncil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/EWC-CONTRACT-SURVEY-FICTION-2024.pdf

[2] Williams, Rhys J (2024). “Empirical effects of resale price maintenance: Evidence from fixed book price policies in Europe”. In: Journal of Competition Law & Economics 20.1-2, pp. 108–136. DOI: 10.1093/joclec/nhae004, https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/20/1-2/108/7638187

 

[3] Lüke, Daniel (2025). “Tales of tails: sales distribution and the role of retail channels in the German book market”. In: Journal of Cultural Economics 49, pp. 939–961. ISSN: 0885-2545. DOI: 10.1007/s10824-025-09548-y, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10824-025-09548-y; Genakos, C., M. Pagliero, L. Sabatino, and T. Valletti (2025). Cultural Exception? The Impact of Price Regulation on Prices and Variety in the Market for Books. Working Paper. Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. DOI: 10.17863/CAM.118366, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/6e7709b3-8ce0-4b93-8cec-80d80e7f463d.

 

[4] Comercio Interior del Libro en España © CEDRO & Este proyecto ha recibido una ayuda del Ministerio de Cultura, a través de la Dirección General del Libro del Cómic y de la Lectura2024: https://federacioneditores.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Comercio-Interior-2024_Interior.pdf

[5] Ibid.

[6] Gail, Maximilian Maurice and Phil-Adrian Klotz (2025). “E-book Pricing Under the Agency Model: Lessons from the UK”. In: Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 25.17. ISSN: 1566-1679,  DOI: 10.1007/s10842-025-00451-y, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10842-025-00451-y

 

[7] Fishwick, Francis (2008). “Book Prices in the UK Since the End of Resale Price Maintenance”. In: International Journal of the Economics of Business 15.3, pp. 359–377. DOI: 10.1080/13571510802465120, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13571510802465120

 

[8] German Book Price Fixing Act: “protect books as cultural goods” by “ensuring a wide variety of books” and making them accessible to “the general public by promoting the existence of a large number of sales outlets.” (§1, Buchpreisbindungsgesetz, BuchPrG).

[9] Fishwick, “Book Prices in the UK”.

[10] https://centrenationaldulivre.fr/sites/default/files/2023-04/Les%20Français%20et%20la%20lecture%20Rapport%20complet%202023-04-12%20OK.pdf

[11] https://www.uni-giessen.de/de/fbz/fb02/fb/professuren/vwl/goetz/forschung/projekteordner/downloads/reader_jlu_goetz_economic_effects_fixed_book_price_systems/view

 

[12] Götz, Georg; Herold, Daniel; Klotz, Phil-Adrian; Schäfer, Jan Thomas (2020) When local bookshops close, more people give up reading. LSE Business Review. URL: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/107240/

 

[13] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202504875

[14] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[15] https://www.raoe.at/news/buchpreisbindung-bleibt-noch-ein-stein-auf-dem-anderen/

[16] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union.html

[17] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:EN:PDF#page=15

[18] https://academic.oup.com/book/16534/chapter/171892693

[19] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX%3A12008E101%3AEN%3AHTML

[20] Joined Cases 60/84 and 61/84 Cinéthèque SA v Fédération nationale des cinémas français [1985] ECLI:EU:C:1985:329; 

Case C-531/07 Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:276, para. 34.

Case C-531/07 Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:276, para. 32.

[21] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XC0323(03)

[1] https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=showPdf.jsf&text=&docid=301211&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1213391

[2] https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVIII/EU/55787