Previous 11 / 11 Next

3/8/23, 13:29 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:4966, Rechtbank Amsterdam, C/13/689184 / KG ZA 20-783 12 Zie bijv. R. Hoekstra, ‘Private communicatiemachthebbers en onze uitingsvrijheid’, Mediaforum 2015, afl. 1, p.10. 13 Zie bijv. vzr. rb. Amsterdam 9 september 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:4435 (X en Y/YouTube). 14 Zie ook (weer) R. Hoekstra, ‘Private communicatiemachthebbers en onze uitingsvrijheid’, Mediaforum 2015, afl. 1, p. 7-9, 11 en vzr, rb. Groningen 31 mei 2012, ECLI:NL:RBGRO:2012:BW7184. 15 type: eB coll: JD https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:4966 11/11

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Smart Exit c.s. v. Facebook

Case Law

Country

Netherlands

Country Location

Latitude: 52.36339133405984

Longitude: 5.811348852367721

Country Location (linked Case Law): Netherlands

Decision Date: 13 de out. de 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Inadmissible
Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Denied/Vacated

Keywords

Content Regulation / Censorship
Digital Rights

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Case Number: C/13/689184/KGZA 20-783

Case Summary: The Amsterdam District Court denied the reinstatement of two Facebook pages that were removed by the company as they contained information that violated Facebook's Covid 19 policy. In 2020 Facebook deleted the pages “No against 1,5 meters” and “Viruswaanzin”, arguing that they breached their Policy on Covid 19 information. Plaintiffs Smart Exit, Viruswaarheid, and Plaintiff 3 (collectively referred to as Smart Exit c.s.) sued Facebook requesting the pages to be reinstated. The Court considered that in this case there was no horizontal direct effect of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, concluding that as a private party, Facebook has no obligation to ensure that the right to freedom of expression must be exercised on their platform. Regarding the horizontal indirect effect of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Court determined that the removal of the pages was a legitimate restriction of freedom of expression under Art. 10(2) since Facebook created and applied its COVID-19 policy at the request of the European Commission —which asked social media platforms to help prevent the spreading of medical misinformation about COVID-19 in the context of protecting public health. Moreover, the Court held that Facebook’s property rights constitute a second legitimate restriction to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Related Caselaw (self)

Netherlands

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 29 de set. de 2023

Primary Documents

ECLI_NL_RBAMS_2020_4966-Rechtbank-Amsterdam-C_13_689184-_-KG-ZA-20-783.pdf
Dutch
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Smart Exit c.s. v. Facebook

Primary Documents

Notifications