Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden - 40397/12 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 394 (19 February 2013)

The interference with applicants' freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society due to the protection of copyright holders' property rights and the applicants' failure to remove infringing material.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2013] ECHR 394
Parties: Applicant: Neij; Applicant: Sunde Kolmisoppi; Respondent: Sweden
Jurisdiction: European Union
Judgment Date: 19 February 2013
Procedural Posture: Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)
Legal Topics: Freedom of Expression, Copyright Infringement, Margin of Appreciation

Human Rights Intellectual Property Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Copyright Infringement Margin of Appreciation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Neij

Applicant

Sunde Kolmisoppi

Applicant

Sweden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

1 Whether conviction and damages for operating a file-sharing website violated Article 10 (freedom of expression)
2 Whether interference was necessary in a democratic society

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.