Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC] - 64569/09 - Legal Summary

Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC] - 64569/09 - Legal Summary

The Court held that imposing liability on the applicant company for failing to prevent or remove clearly unlawful comments (hate speech and incitement to violence) posted by third parties on its news portal was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. The applicant's professional and commercial role, the foreseeability of liability, the insufficiency of self-regulatory mechanisms, and the proportionality of the sanction justified the interference with Article 10 rights.

Citation
[2015] ECHR 676
Parties
Applicant: Delfi AS; Respondent: Estonia
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
16 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights (grand Chamber) / Final Judgment
Outcome
No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Liability of Internet Intermediaries, Hate Speech, Defamation, User Generated Content
Human Rights Law Media Law Defamation Freedom of Expression Liability of Internet Intermediaries Hate Speech User Generated Content

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delfi AS

Applicant

Estonia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights (grand Chamber) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether holding an internet news portal liable for offensive comments posted by third parties violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that imposing liability on the applicant company for failing to prevent or remove clearly unlawful comments (hate speech and incitement to violence) posted by third parties on its news portal was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. The applicant's professional and commercial role, the foreseeability of liability, the insufficiency of self-regulatory mechanisms, and the proportionality of the sanction justified the interference with Article 10 rights.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No violation found