CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Muscio v. Italy - 31358/03 Decision 13.11.2007 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Receipt of unsolicited pornographic messages by e-mail and prosecutor's decision not to institute criminal proceedings: interference, inadmissible   The applicant, the president of a Catholic parents’ association, brought proceedings against a person or persons unknown because of obscene messages he had received by e-mail. The prosecuting authorities discontinued the proceedings because there had been no defamation, fraud or unlawful use of the applicant’s personal data,   and the applicant could not rely on the Article of the Criminal Code outlawing the circulation of obscene pictures as, although pornographic, the content of the offending e-mails was not obscene. The e-mails the applicant received had been sent to Internet addresses selected at random. It was impossible to identify the sender as he had concealed his e-mail address. The applicant complained that he had had no legal means of refusing to receive the offending e-mails. Inadmissible : The applicant had received pornographic e-mails that had offended his moral convictions. The Court considered that receiving unwanted or offensive communications amounted to an interference with a person’s right to respect for his private life. Once connected to the Internet, users of electronic mail systems no longer enjoyed effective protection of their privacy, exposing themselves to what were often unwanted messages, images and information. That drawback could be partly avoided by installing electronic “filters”. The legal proceedings brought by the applicant had never had any chance of success, the sender of the offending messages having concealed his e-mail address. It was a fact that the efforts of Internet service providers in various countries to combat “spam” encountered objective difficulties which were not always technically surmountable. That being so, the Court could not find that the State should have made additional efforts to discharge the positive obligations it might have had under Article 8. Furthermore, Internet access providers operated under the terms of agreements concluded with State authorities and under their supervision. The applicant could therefore have lodged a civil claim for damages, which might have led to the award of financial compensation even if it had proved impossible to identify the sender of the offending e-mails: manifestly ill-founded. See also K.U. v. Finland , no.2872/02, decision of 27 June 2006, Information Note no. 88.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes