Précédent 10 / 10 Next

Decision no. 2009-580 DC of 10 June 2009 | Conseil constitutionnel 02/02/2023, 13:42 modalités de leur mise en œuvre, notamment les conditions de conservation des données, seront strictement proportionnées à cette finalité. (2009-580 DC, 10 June 2009, cons. 29, Journal officiel du 13 juin 2009, page 9675, texte n° 3) À voir aussi sur le site : Communiqué de presse, Commentaire, Dossier documentaire, Législation consolidée, Dossier complet sur le site de l'Assemblée nationale, Dossier complet sur le site du Sénat, Projet de loi adopté le 13 mai 2009 (T.A. n° 81), Saisine par 60 députés, Observations du gouvernement, Références doctrinales. https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/decision/2009/2009580DC.htm Page 10 of 10

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

In re Law No. 2009-669 furthering the Diffusion and Protection of Creation on the Internet

Case Law

Country

France

Country Location

Latitude: 46.808568018841505

Longitude: 2.799314618110868

Country Location (Lié Case Law): France

Decision Date: 10 juin 2009

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Internet Shutdown
Privacy

Judicial Body: Constitutional Court

Court Name: French Constitutional Court

Case Number: Decision no. 2009-580 DC

Case Summary: The French Constitutional Court held that certain parts of sections 5 and 11 of the Law No. 2009-669 of June 12, 2009 furthering the diffusion and protection of creation on the Internet, commonly known as the HADOPI law, were unconstitutional. Members of the National Assembly requested the French Constitutional Court to adjudge the legality of this law arguing that it gave an administrative authority, albeit independent authority, the power to suspend access to the internet for copyright infringement, which was a “patently disproportionate penalty” and constituted a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression and communication. They placed reliance on Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789. The Court ruled that although the Parliament was at a “liberty to lay down rules intended to reconcile the pursuit of the objective of fighting infringement of copyright on the internet with the right of free communication and freedom to speak, write and publish” under Article 34 of the French Constitution, it didn’t have the liberty to vest powers to suspend the internet in an administrative authority for the purpose of protecting holders of copyright and related rights.

Case Significance: The court expanded freedom of expression by remarking that, “freedom of expression and communication are all the more precious since they are one of the cornerstones of a democratic society and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Any restrictions placed on the exercising of such freedom must necessarily be adapted and proportionate to the purpose it is sought to achieve”. While highlighting this, the court ruled that restrictions on right to access internet should be proportional.

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

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 10 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Decision of the Court
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

In re Law No. 2009-669 furthering the Diffusion and Protection of Creation on the Internet

Documents principaux

Notifications