Delfi AS v. Estonia
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 64569/09 (GC) 16 June 2015 (2015)

- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
Delfi AS (plaintiff) was one of the largest online news outlets in Estonia (defendant). At the bottom of each article, readers could add their own comments. Approximately 10,000 comments were added by readers each day. Delfi did not edit or moderate the comments added by readers. If a reader placed a comment that was insulting or inciting hatred, Delfi removed the comment. Additionally, there was an automated system to delete comments that included obscenities. A victim of a defamatory comment could notify Delfi and the comment would be removed immediately. Delfi published an article on a public ferry transport service between mainland Estonia and certain islands. Over 180 comments were made on the article, with about 20 containing personal threats and offensive language against the owner of the ferry service. The ferry-service owner requested that the comments be taken down, and Delfi removed the comments on the same day. The ferry company sued Delfi, and eventually Delfi was held liable for the online comments of readers that violated the ferry owner’s personality rights. Delfi filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that its Article 10 right to free expression had been violated by the imposition of liability for the content of readers’ comments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

