Précédent 9 / 9 Next

PIHL v. SWEDEN DECISION 9 For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 March 2017. Stephen Phillips Registrar Branko Lubarda President

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Pihl v. Sweden

Case Law

Country

Sweden

Country Location

Latitude: 59.6916726946807

Longitude: 14.217204763399222

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Sweden

Decision Date: 9 mars 2017

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Affirmed in Part/Reversed in Part
Appeal allowed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Defamation
Intermediary Liability
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: Application No. 74742/14

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights found that the Swedish courts had not violated an individual's right to a private life by refusing to find a small non-profit association liable for a defamatory third-party comment on its blog. The case arose from a blog and a comment that appeared on the website of a small non-profit organization that were defamatory of Andreas Daniel Pihl. Upon notice from Mr. Pihl, the organization removed the impugned blog post and the comment, acknowledged their falsity, and apologised to Mr. Pihl. Mr. Pihl subsequently brought defamation proceedings against the organization, but was unsuccessful before the domestic courts. His claim before the European Court of Human Rights rested on the fact that his right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention had been violated by the Swedish courts' inability to hold the organizaton liable for the third party content. In its decision, the European Court of Human Rights paid particular consideration to the fact that the comment itself did not amount to hate speech or incitement to violence, and that the association removed the comment swiftly following notice from the aggrieved individual. The European Court of Human Rights concluded there had been no violation of Mr. Pihl's right to a private life.

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

Related Caselaw (self)

Source Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 11 mai 2024

Documents principaux

PIHL v. SWEDEN.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Pihl v. Sweden

Documents principaux

Notifications