Explore

In a recent decision by the country’s Supreme Court, two provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (see above) were stricken down and declared void for being unconstitutional. (i) In its original text, the law provided for the real-time collection of traffic data by law enforcement authorities and service providers were required to “cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording” of said traffic data. Section 12 previously read as: "Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system. Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time...

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 proposed amendments will introduce a comprehensive notice-and-takedown procedure for service providers. The amendments will include modernization and supplementing the provisions of the Act specifying the conditions to be met by electronic services providers to benefit from the exemption of liability for unlawful content posted by users. Provisions of the Act will supplement the existing notice and takedown procedure.

Providing open access to the Internet does not result in liability for content uploaded by anonymous users. The case was filed by Darius B. who anonymously posted a letter to the President of E. Among the comments to his text was one which included personal details and defaming statements about the plaintiff. The police identified the IP of the computer used for uploading the content. It was sent from an open network provided by the City of E. available to the employees of the city as well as neighboring households. It was not technically possible to identify the individual who posted the comment. The Supreme Court found that no liability for personal rights infringement rests upon the city which provided access to the open network nor was it under an obligation to provide technical tools for identifying individual...

The Polish Supreme Court found that the "deliberations that, according to the law, publishing press in electronic form does not require registration are wrong and contrary to entrenched doctrine." Therefore, “the person distributing without registration in the suitable district court, a journal or a periodical on the Internet, regardless whether such a distribution is accompanied by a transmission in print, next to its electronic form, or whether it exists solely in the electronic form on the Internet, suffices to recognize the crime described in art 45 of Press Law as having been committed.”