Delfi AS v. Estonia | |
---|---|
Submitted 4 December 2009 Decided 16 June 2015 | |
Full case name | Delfi AS v. Estonia |
Case | 64569/09 |
Chamber | Grand Chamber |
Language of proceedings | english, french |
Court composition | |
President Dean Spielmann | |
Keywords | |
Freedom of expression, intermediary liability |
Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015) ECtHR 64669/09 is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the grand chamber, by 15-2 majority, ruled that holding Estonian news site Delfi liable for anonymous defamatory comments posted online from its readers, even when they are removed upon request, was not a violation of the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights' guarantees of the freedom of speech. [1]
The ruling was unexpected, because of potential conflicts with the "actual knowledge" standard of Article 14 of the EU's E-Commerce Directive. [2] It also raises anxieties as to the extent freedom of expression on the internet has been compromised. The ruling does not yet[ when?] have direct legal effect, but it may be influential in the development of national and European Union law. [3]
Delfi AS was represented by attorneys-at-law Karmen Turk and Villu Otsmann from pan-Baltic law firm TRINITI and the government of Estonia by Maris Kuurberg.[ citation needed]
The case was followed shortly by Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, which reached a different conclusion based on slightly different facts. [4]
Delfi AS v. Estonia | |
---|---|
Submitted 4 December 2009 Decided 16 June 2015 | |
Full case name | Delfi AS v. Estonia |
Case | 64569/09 |
Chamber | Grand Chamber |
Language of proceedings | english, french |
Court composition | |
President Dean Spielmann | |
Keywords | |
Freedom of expression, intermediary liability |
Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015) ECtHR 64669/09 is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the grand chamber, by 15-2 majority, ruled that holding Estonian news site Delfi liable for anonymous defamatory comments posted online from its readers, even when they are removed upon request, was not a violation of the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights' guarantees of the freedom of speech. [1]
The ruling was unexpected, because of potential conflicts with the "actual knowledge" standard of Article 14 of the EU's E-Commerce Directive. [2] It also raises anxieties as to the extent freedom of expression on the internet has been compromised. The ruling does not yet[ when?] have direct legal effect, but it may be influential in the development of national and European Union law. [3]
Delfi AS was represented by attorneys-at-law Karmen Turk and Villu Otsmann from pan-Baltic law firm TRINITI and the government of Estonia by Maris Kuurberg.[ citation needed]
The case was followed shortly by Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, which reached a different conclusion based on slightly different facts. [4]