The operators and administrators of Bittorrent tracker "Finreactor" were held to be jointly criminally liable for users' copyright infringement and, in consequence, also liable for compensation and remuneration. The hosting exemption was not applicable due to the awareness, knowledge and participation of Finreactor to the infringing activities. The case has been reported in English for example in Pessi Honkasalo, Criminal Proceedings Against the Administrators of a BitTorrent Tracker: Finreactor KKO 2010:47, 32 EIPR 591 (2010). There have been also a number of appellate court decisions where the operators of DirectConnect hubs were similarly held to be responsible and liable for compensation (see below).
The Court held that a site providing links of blocked targets was helping in propagating child pornography and there were grounds to add it to the blocking list provided by the Act 1068/2006 (see above). For critique in Finnish, see eg. Pekka Savola and Riku Neuvonen, KHO 2013:136 – Verkkotunnusluettelon julkistamisen katsottiin edesauttavan lapsipornon levittämistä (2014) 112 Lakimies 114.
Chapter 7 and in particular its Section 3 provides a general provision on judicial precautionary (preliminary) measures. However, it has been held that these injunctions cannot be applied against intermediaries (eg. in the context of copyright infringement), because they are not infringers and there is no liability, negligence, or such on part of the intermediary.
This case refers to the geographical scope of delistings in "right to be forgotten" (droit au déréférencement) requests. Google filed a complaint on the Conseil d'Etat against the decision of CNIL to fine the company in the amount of 100,000 Euros for failing to comply with the commission letter of formal notice. On the letter, CNIL demanded Google to delist search results on all the extensions of domain name of its search engine (google.fr; google.uk; etc...). CNIL considered the measures took by the company insufficient to ensure the data protection rights of European citizens. In this decision, the Conseil d'Etat stayed the proceedings and referred three questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The first question is if a search engine, when implementing the ECJ's Google Spain decision, must delist the...
With this decision, the Conseil d'Etat refers to the ECJ questions about the implementation of the "right to be forgotten", based on four requests refused by Google, brought to CNIL and refused by the Commission, and then brought by the claimants to the Conseil. The Conseil d'Etat seeks clarification on the interpretation of the Google Spain about the obligations of a search engine to delist search results pointing to web pages that contain sensistive data - as defined in the EU Directive 95/46/EU (the Data Protection Directive)
According to the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL), by the date of this deliberation Google has processed approximately 80,000 requests of French citizens to delist specific results from its search engine (right to be forgotten requests). The decision affirms the company delisted 51,5% of the requests. To address the complaints of French citizens who had their requests refused, CNIL launched an investigation on the company. Following the assessment of the complaints, CNIL requested Google to delist several results. According to the authority, "it was expressly requested that the delisting should be effective on whole search engine, irrespective of the extension used (.fr; .uk; .com ...). As the delistings were carried out in European extensions, and not in extensions such as google.com or other non-European...