Last Updated on April 27, 2019 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 227
March 2019
Høiness v. Norway – 43624/14
Judgment 19.3.2019 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Internet news portal found not liable for sexist remarks posted on its site by anonymous third parties: no violation
Facts – The applicant was a well-known lawyer in Norway. Following newspaper articles regarding her relationship with an elderly widow from whom she would inherit, an online news portal opened a thread discussion on the subject. The forum could be accessed via the online newspaper. There followed, inter alia, vulgar, sexist remarks about the applicant. Comments were deleted after notification, one on the moderators’ own initiative. Following unsuccessful domestic proceedings, the applicant complained to the Court that there had been a breach to her right to respect for her private life.
Law – Article 8: The question was whether the State had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 and the online news agency and forum host’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10. It was not necessary to examine in depth the nature of the impugned comments, as they in any event did not amount to hate speech or incitement to violence. There was no reason to contest the applicant’s allegation that she would have faced considerable obstacles in attempting to pursue claims against the anonymous individual or individuals who had written the comments.
As to the context in which the comments had been made, the Court noted that the news portal was large and commercially run and the debate forums were popular. It did not appear, however, from the judgments of the domestic courts that the debate forums were particularly integrated into the presentation of news and thus could be taken to be a continuation of the editorial articles. With respect to the measures adopted by the news portal, it appeared that there had been an established system of moderators who monitored content. Readers could click on “warning” buttons on the website in order to react to comments. It appeared that a response could also be given to warnings by other means, such as email.
Two of the impugned comments had not been picked up by the moderators, but thirteen minutes after having notified them of concerns, the applicant’s counsel received an email stating that the comments had been deleted. A further comment had been deleted on the moderators’ own initiative. Upon an overall examination and assessment of the measures that had been put in place in order to monitor the forum comments and the specific responses to the applicant’s notifications, the domestic court had found that the news portal company and its editor had acted appropriately.
The applicant’s case had been considered on its merits by two judicial instances at the domestic level before the Supreme Court had refused leave to appeal. The domestic courts had reviewed the relevant aspects of the case and acted within their margin of appreciation when seeking to establish a balance between the applicant’s rights and those of the news portal and host of the debate forums.
The Court noted the considerable amount of litigation costs imposed on the applicant. However, taking account of the nature of the claim lodged before the national courts and the subject matter, it did not consider that it could call into question the domestic courts’ assessment as to the imposition of costs.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
(See also Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], 64569/09, 16 June 2015, Information Note 186; Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, 22947/13, 2 February 2016, Information Note 193; and Pihl v. Sweden (dec.), 74742/14, 7 February 2017, Information Note 205)
Leave a Reply