• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

arlawpractice

AR Law

  • Mission
  • Compliance 231
    • Il D. Lgs. 231 del 2001
    • L’Organismo di vigilanza “ODV”
    • Modello di organizzazione e gestione
    • Mappatura delle procedure
    • Whistleblowing
    • La nostra proposta
  • Per le aziende
    • ADR Arbitrati internazionali
    • Contenzioso
      • Recupero crediti
    • Diritto Bancario
    • Diritto dei contratti commerciali internazionali
      • Fintech, Digital, Media & Technology
      • Diritto del settore della moda e del lusso
      • Diritto della musica e dell’intrattenimento
    • Diritto dei trasporti e della navigazione
      • Diritto del diporto nautico
      • Diritto doganale
    • Diritto societario e fiscale
  • Per i privati
    • Contenzioso
    • Diritto di Famiglia
    • Diritto Penale
    • Responsabilità civile
    • Successioni e Donazioni
  • Persone
    • Anna Realmuto
    • Barbara Tripi
    • Ivana Sardina
    • Antonio Scargiali
    • Eliana Puma
    • Emmy Di Gioia
  • News & Blog
  • Contatti
  • Italiano
    • Inglese

La Corte di Giustizia Ue: FB può essere obbligata a rimuovere i commenti identici a quelli illeciti

24th Ottobre 2019 by Anna Realmuto

The EU Court of Justice: FB may be obliged to remove comments identical to illegal ones.
By a ruling handed down yesterday, 3 October 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled that individual countries can force Facebook to eliminate illegal content, including hate content, both within the EU and worldwide.


The decision came after an Austrian Green Party member, Eva Glawischnig Piesczek, had filed a lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg’s social network at the Austrian High Court, calling for the removal of a number of defamatory comments about her globally.

The Austrian court therefore turned to the European Court to ask whether Article 15, paragraph 1 of Directive 2000/31/EC was in general an obstacle to one of the obligations imposed on a hosting service provider, that it has not promptly removed unlawful information, in particular the obligation to remove, not only such unlawful information but also other identical information such as:
• at world level;

• in the Member State concerned;

• of the user concerned worldwide.

The Court replied that there is nothing in EU law that would prevent national courts from asking Facebook to search for and delete duplicate posts of illegal content. And that such removal measures must be applied worldwide.

This ruling threatens to open a pot of pandora because what is forbidden in one nation may not be so in another, even within the EU and among its Member States; In fact, it is strongly against the thesis of those who maintain that a country should not have the right to limit free expression in other countries with different rules.


Removal obligations imposed on host provider, based on the EU standards mentioned above, a hosting service provider, such as Facebook, is not responsible for the information stored if it is not aware of its illegality or if it acts immediately to remove it or to disable access to it as soon as it becomes aware of it.

However, this disclaimer does not affect the possibility of requiring the host provider to end a breach or prevent a breach, in particular by deleting or disabling unlawful information.

On the other hand, the directive prohibits the general supervision of storedinformation or the active search for facts or circumstances indicating the presence of illegal activities.

By that judgment, the European courts specified that, in accordance with Community rules, it is legitimate for a Member State to order the hosting service provider.

Under EU law, a host provider may be ordered to remove identical comments and, under certain conditions, equivalent to a comment previously declared unlawful.

Filed Under: Corporate and commercial Tagged With: contenuto illegale, Corte Austriaca, Corte Europea

Primary Sidebar

Contattaci

    *campi obbligatori

    Recent Posts

    • Whistleblowing: dal 17 dicembre obblighi anche per le PMI  11th Dicembre 2023
    • “Clausole 231” tra Appalti, Joint Venture ed ATI 1st Novembre 2023
    • La Cassazione dice SI al cumulo della domanda di separazione e divorzio congiunto. 17th Ottobre 2023
    • Applicabilità Decreto Legislativo 231/2001 agli enti stranieri 17th Ottobre 2023

    Tag

    Arbitrati internazionali Arbitrato internazionale Autorità di Sistema Portuale Brexit Charter nautico Clausole nei contratti internazionali Colpa medica Compravendita unità da diporto Contratti internazionali Contratto turistico Convenzione di Montreal Corte Europea Covid-19 Crowfunding D. Lgs. 231/2001 Danno da vacanza rovinata Deadlock Divorzio Equity joint venture agreement Escalation clauses Gentlemen agreement ICC Leasing finanziario Legge di Bilancio 2020 Legge fallimentare Litigation funding Locazione unità da diporto LOI Marchi e brevetti Medical malpractice MOU noleggio imbarcazione Noleggio occasionale Non imponibilità iva Pacchetto turistico Piano genitoriale Proprietà intellettuale Reg. UE 2015/848 Riforma Cartabia Risarcimento del danno Rizzaggio o derizzaggio Russian roulette clause Servizi portuali Shareholders agreement Supply chain
    • ADR Arbitrati internazionali
    • Diritto dei trasporti e della navigazione
    • Diritto doganale
    • Contenzioso
    • Responsabilità civile
    • Recupero crediti
    • Diritto Penale
    • Diritto dei contratti commerciali internazionali
    • Diritto societario e fiscale

    Privacy Policy | Forensis Code of Ethics

    Informativa sulla Privacy | Codice Deontologico Forense


    Copyright © 2025 · Infinity Pro on Genesis Framework