Previous 19 / 24 Next

EINARSSON v. ICELAND JUDGMENT 17 Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Registrar Julia Laffranque President In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinions of Judges Lemmens and Mourou-Vikström are annexed to this judgment. J.L. H.B.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Einarsson v. Iceland

Case Law

Country

Iceland

Country Location

Latitude: 65.3085823756205

Longitude: -17.714708543468866

Country Location (linked Case Law): Iceland

Decision Date: Nov 7, 2017

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Defamation
Freedom of Expression
Social Media

Case Number: 24703/15

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights found that the courts in Iceland had violated a controversial media personality’s right to a private life by rejecting his defamation claim against an internet user who called him a “rapist” online. The case concerned a well-known blogger, writer and media personality who had been accused by a woman of rape. One week after the rape case against him was dismissed, an Instagram user published a modified image of the media personality with the caption “[f]uck you rapist bastard”. The national courts refused to find the Instagram user liable for defamation because his statement, in context, amounted to a value judgment. The European Court of Human Rights disagreed with the approach of the national courts, stating that the national courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the media personality’s right to respect for his private life and the Instagram user’s right to freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights took particular issue with the domestic courts’ classification of the term “rapist” as a value judgment, rather than a statement of fact. As a result, it found a violation of the media personality’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Primary Documents

CASE OF EGILL EINARSSON v. ICELAND.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Einarsson v. Iceland

Primary Documents

Notifications