Website Operators’ Liability for Offensive Comments: A Comparative Analysis of Delfi as v. Estonia and MTE & Index v. Hungary

1. Brunner, Lisl. “The Liability of an Online Intermediary for Third Party Content. The Watchdog Becomes the Monitor: Intermediary Liability after Delfi v Estonia.” Human Rights Law Review 16 (2016): 163–174.10.1093/hrlr/ngv048Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

2. Caddell, Richard. “The last post? Third party Internet liability and the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights: Delphi AS v Estonia revisited.” Communications Law 21 (2) (2016): 49–52.Search in Google Scholar

3. Caddell, Richard. “Third party Internet liability and the European Court of Human Rights.” Communications Law 21 (3) (2016): 88–91.Search in Google Scholar

4. Cox, Neville. “Delfi AS v. Estonia: The Liability of Secondary Internet Publishers for Violation of Reputational Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.” Modern Law Review 77 (4) (2014): 619–629.10.1111/1468-2230.12081Search in Google Scholar

5. European Digital Rights (EDRi). “Human Rights Violations Online” (December 2014) // https://edri.org/files/EDRI_CoE.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

6. European Group on Tort Law. Unification of Tort Law: Wrongfulness. Edited by Helmut Koziol. The Hague & Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1998.Search in Google Scholar

7. Gasser, Urs, and Wolfgang Schulz. “Governance of Online Intermediaries Observations from a Series of National Case Studies”: 1–18. In: Urs Gasser and Wolgang Schulz, eds. Governance of Online Intermediaries Observations from a Series of National Case Studies 2015 (5). Harvard and Hamburg: The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

8. Griffith, Megan E. “Downgraded to “Netflix And Chill”: Freedom of Expression and the Chilling Effect on User-Generated Content in Europe.” The Columbia Journal of European Law 22 (2016): 355–381.Search in Google Scholar

9. Jočienė, Danutė. “Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencijos įtaka nacionalinei teisei bei jurisprudencijai, tobulinant žmogaus teisių apsaugą. Konvencijos ir Europos Sąjungos teisės santykis” (The impact of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to the Perfection of the National Law and Jurisprudence in the Context of the Protection of Human Rights. The Relationship of the Convention and the Law of European Union). Jurisprudencija 7(97) (2007): 17–27.Search in Google Scholar

10. McCarthy, Hugh J. “Is the Writing on the Wall for Online Service Providers? Liability for Hosting Defamatory User-Generated Content Under European and Irish Law.” Hibernian Law Journal 14 (2015): 16–54.Search in Google Scholar

11. Meškauskaitė, Liudvika. Teisė į privatų gyvenimą (The Right to Private Life). Vilnius: VĮ Registrų centras, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

12. Minárik, Tomáš, and Anna-Maria Osula. “Tor does not stink: Use and abuse of the Tor anonymity network from the perspective of law.” Computer Law & Security review 32 (2016): 111–127.10.1016/j.clsr.2015.12.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

13. Ong, Rebecca. “Liability of Internet intermediaries for user generated content: An examination of Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd.” Computer Law and Security Review 31 (2015): 131–138.10.1016/j.clsr.2014.11.008Search in Google Scholar

14. Perry, Ronen, and Tal Z. Zarsky. “Liability for Online Anonymous Speech: Comparative and Economic Analyses.” Journal of European Tort Law 5 (2) (2014): 205–256.10.1515/jetl-2014-0012Search in Google Scholar

15. Perry, Ronen, and Tal Z. Zarsky. “Who Should Be Liable for Online Anonymous Defamation?” The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue 82 (2015): 162–176.Search in Google Scholar

16. Study Group on a European Civil Code and the Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group). Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Full Edition. Edited by Christian von Bar, Eric Clive, and Hans Schulte-Nölke. Munich: Sellier. European Law Publishers, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

17. Synodinou, Tatiani E. “Intermediaries' liability for online copyright infringement in the EU: Evolutions and confusions.” Computer Law & Security Review 31 (1) (2015): 57–67.10.1016/j.clsr.2014.11.010Search in Google Scholar

18. Van der Sloot, Bart. “The Practical and Theoretical Problems with ‘Balancing’. Delfi, Coty and the Redundancy of the Human Rights Framework.” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 23 (3) (2016): 439–459.10.1177/1023263X1602300304Search in Google Scholar

19. Van der Sloot, Bart. “Welcome to the Jungle: The Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Privacy Violations in Europe.” Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology, and Electronic Commerce Law 6 (2015): 211–228.Search in Google Scholar

20. Volovelsky, Uri, and Roy Raynzilber. “The Liability of Website Owners for Defamation in Israel: A Challenge yet to be solved?” Computer Law and Security Review 29 (5) (2013): 590–600.10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.011Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

21. Weinert, Eileen. “MET v Hungary: the first European Court of Human Rights ruling on liability for user comments after Delfi AS v Estonia.” Entertainment Law Review 27(4) (2016): 135–139.Search in Google Scholar

1. Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC]. European Court of Human Rights, 2012, appeal no 39954/08.Search in Google Scholar

2. Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC]. European Court of Human Rights, 2015, appeal no 64569/09.Search in Google Scholar

3. Delfi AS v. Estonia. European Court of Human Rights, 2013, appeal no 64569/09.Search in Google Scholar

4. Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, joined cases no. C-293/12 and C-594/12.Search in Google Scholar

5. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (no 2000/31). Official Journal of the European Union, L 178, 17/07/2000, p. 0001 – 0016.Search in Google Scholar

6. Google France SARL and Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, Google France SARL v. Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL and Google France SARL v Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2010, joined cases no. C-236/08, C-237/08 C-238/08.Search in Google Scholar

7. Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, case no. C-131/12.Search in Google Scholar

8. Krone Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (no. 4). European Court of Human Rights, 2006, appeal no 72331/01.Search in Google Scholar

9. L’Oréal SA and Others v eBay International AG and Others [GC]. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2011, case no. C-324/09.Search in Google Scholar

10. Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary. European Court of Human Rights, 2016, appeal no 22947/13.Search in Google Scholar

11. Sotiris Papasavvas v O Fileleftheros Dimosia Etaireia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, case no. C-291/13.Search in Google Scholar

12. Uj v. Hungary. European Court of Human Rights, 2011, appeal no 23954/10.Search in Google Scholar

13. Von Hannover v. Germany [GC]. European Court of Human Rights, 2012, appeal no 40660/08 and 60641/08.Search in Google Scholar