Explore

This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet.

The Court denied liability of the discussion forum provider for libelous comments of unknown users. The provider was sued without previous notice and takedown request. Although the first instance Court held the provider liable for users comments, without explaining the basis of such liability, the Court of Appeals rejected this because the provider did not act against the right of the plaintiff himself. The Court did not discuss liability for wrongful omission or liability to serve injunctions as a non-infringer. The case was appealed further to the Supreme Court, where it is currently pending.

The Court rejected a delictual cease and desist claim against the domain authority arguing that it is not liable for registrations carried out by the third parties. The court does not provide extensive explanation for this and neither does it discuss an alternative basis of secondary liability. It can be also argued that this decision is not a good example because the claim that was rejected, although having basis in the delict law, was formulated more as a concrete contractual act that the domain name authority should carry out (withdrawal). Hence the consequences of the decision remain mostly open. see also Huťko´s Technology Law blog post