17.11.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/14

(Case C-291/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/31/EC - Scope - Defamation proceedings))

2014/C 409/20

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sotiris Papasavvas

Defendants: O Fileleftheros Dimosia Etairia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis

Operative part of the judgment

1)Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘information society services’, within the meaning of that provision, covers the provision of online information services for which the service provider is remunerated, not by the recipient, but by income generated by advertisements posted on a website.

2)In a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Directive 2000/31 does not preclude the application of rules of civil liability for defamation.

3)The limitations of civil liability specified in Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31 do not apply to the case of a newspaper publishing company which operates a website on which the online version of a newspaper is posted, that company being, moreover, remunerated by income generated by commercial advertisements posted on that website, since it has knowledge of the information posted and exercises control over that information, whether or not access to that website is free of charge.

4)The limitations of civil liability specified in Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31 are capable of applying in the context of proceedings between individuals relating to civil liability for defamation, where the conditions referred to in those articles are satisfied.

5)Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31 do not allow information society service providers to oppose the bringing of legal proceedings for civil liability against them and, consequently, the adoption of a prohibitory injunction by a national court. The limitations of liability provided for in those articles may be invoked by the provider in accordance with the provisions of national law transposing them or, failing that, for the purpose of an interpretation of that law in conformity with the directive. By contrast, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, Directive 2000/31 cannot, in itself, create obligations on the part of individuals and therefore cannot be relied on against those individuals.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.