CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juin 2006

.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. 88 July-August 2006 K.U. v. Finland (dec.) - 2872/02 Decision 27.6.2006 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life No effective remedy to discover the identity of the author of a defamatory text posted on the Internet in the name of a minor: admissible   Article 13 Effective remedy No effective remedy to discover the identity of the author of a defamatory text posted on the Internet in the name of a minor: admissible   In 1999 an unknown person or persons placed an advertisement on a dating site on the Internet in the name of the applicant, who was then 12 years old, without his knowledge. The advertisement mentioned his age and year of birth, gave a detailed description of his physical characteristics, a link to the web page he had at the time with his picture on it, as well as his phone number, which was accurate save for one digit. In the advertisement, it was claimed that he was looking for an intimate relationship with a boy of his age or older. The applicant became aware of the announcement on the Internet when he received an answer from a man, offering to meet up with him. The applicant’s father requested the police to identify the person who had placed the advertisement in order to bring charges against that person. The service provider however refused to divulge the identity of the holder of the so-called dynamic IP address in question, regarding itself bound by the confidentiality of telecommunications as defined by law. The police then asked the district court to oblige the service provider to divulge the said information pursuant to the Criminal Investigations Act. The district court found no explicit legal provision authorising it to order the service provider to disclose telecommunications identification data in breach of its professional secrecy. The district court’s position was upheld on appeal. By virtue of the Coercive Measures Act the police had the right to obtain telecommunications identification data in cases concerning certain offences, notwithstanding the obligation to observe secrecy. However, calumny was not such an offence. The person who answered the dating advertisement and contacted the applicant was identified and appropriate charges were brought. The managing director of the company which provided the Internet service could not be charged, because the prosecutor found, in April 2001, that the alleged offence had become time-barred. The alleged offence was a violation of the Personal Information Act, i.e. that the service provider had published a defamatory announcement on its website without verifying the identity of the sender. Before the Court the applicant complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that an invasion of his private life had taken place and that no effective remedy existed to discover the identity of a person who had put a defamatory text on the Internet in his name.   © 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