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.

(1) The Ministry of Culture released a new Draft Law on Amending and Supplementing the Media Act, which states that in order to regulate hate speech – especially on online media platforms – the "editor-in-chief" should be held liable for user-generated content (comments and other audiovisual material). Furthermore, the "editor-in-chief" must implement and publish rules for the selection and inclusion of comments. All comments that are not in line with such rules must be deleted in the shortest time possible. Failing to meet listed obligations constitutes a misdemeanor for which the "editor-in-chief" could be fined between 500 and 5000 euros. (2) The Information Commissioner has already expressed concerns regarding the purposed amendments by stating that such obligations could seriously impede constitutionally protected...

The Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance which imposed liability on the operator of a discussion forum for failing to remove defamatory statements, written by its users. The Court stated that the defendant was acting as a host provider under the meaning of article 11 of ZEPT (article 14 of eCommerce directive); therefore, he was obliged to immediately remove or disable access to the infringing statements, as soon as he was informed of their illegal nature. The court concluded that in failing to do so, the discussion forum operator was liable for the unlawful conduct of its users.

(1) The Court confirmed the decision of the court of first instance which held that a blogger (a well know musician) and the blog portal operator (which was acting as a host provider) were not liable for the defamatory statements which were infringing on the plaintiffs personal rights since the plaintiff itself contributed to the damage by introducing the disputed facts from his personal life to the public (injured party`s consent). (2) However, the court emphasized that hosting providers are obliged to expeditiously remove or block access to illegal information as soon as they are aware of its potentially unlawful nature and not only after they acquire knowledge of the illegality by injunction or judgement. The Court`s reasoning also suggests that defaulting the obligation to remove allegedly infringing content leads...

(1) The Court upheld an interim injunction issued against an hosting provider running a web forum where the primary defendant posted the statements tarnishing the reputation of a legal entity. (2) The court explicitly stated that liability is imposed not only on the immediate wrongdoer and any participants in the wrongdoing, but also on anyone who, in any way, knowingly and causally contributes to an infringement by another or creates a risk which could result in the breach of a protected legal right, provided that it is possible and reasonable for them to prevent the infringement. The Court held that the hosting provider should do everything that is technically possible to prevent infringement after being informed of the illegal content by the plaintiff. (3) Since the Court also made a reference to a legal publication...