‘(1) Does Article 15(1) of Directive [2000/31] generally preclude any of the obligations listed below of a host provider which has not expeditiously removed illegal information, specifically not just this illegal information within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of [that] directive, but also other identically worded items of information: – worldwide; – in the relevant Member State; – of the relevant user worldwide; – of the relevant user in the relevant Member State? (2) In so far as Question 1 is answered in the negative: does this also apply in each case for information with an equivalent meaning? (3) Does this also apply for information with an equivalent meaning as soon as the operator has become aware of this circumstance?’ Consideration of the questions referred The first and second questions 21 By its first and second questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Directive 2000/31, in particular Article 15(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a court of a Member State from: – ordering a host provider to remove information which it stores, the content of which is identical to the content of information which was previously declared to be illegal, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information; – ordering a host provider to remove information which it stores, the content of which is equivalent to the content of information which was previously declared to be illegal, or to block access to that information, and – extending the effects of that injunction worldwide. 22 As a preliminary point, it is common ground that Facebook Ireland provides the services of a host provider for the purposes of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31. 23 In that respect, it should be recalled that Article 14(1) of that directive is intended to exempt the host provider from liability where it satisfies one of the two conditions listed in that provision, that is to say, not having knowledge of the illegal activity or information, or acting expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information as soon as it becomes aware of it. 24 In addition, it is apparent from Article 14(3) of Directive 2000/31, read in conjunction with recital 45, that that exemption is without prejudice to the power of the national courts or administrative authorities to require the host provider concerned to terminate or prevent an infringement, including by removing the illegal information or by disabling access to it. 25 It follows that, as the Advocate General stated in point 32 of his Opinion, a host provider may be the addressee of injunctions adopted on the basis of the national law of a Member State, even if it satisfies one of the alternate conditions set out in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31, that is to say, even in the event that it is not considered to be liable.