Quick answer
In Delfi AS v. Estonia (Grand Chamber, 16 June 2015, application no. 64569/09), the European Court of Human Rights held — by fifteen votes to two — that there had been no violation of Article 10 where a large, professionally managed commercial news portal was held liable under domestic law for clearly unlawful reader comments amounting to hate speech. It is the Court’s first judgment on the liability of an internet news portal for comments posted by its users.
Background and facts
Delfi is one of the largest internet news portals in Estonia. Beneath its articles it allowed readers to post comments, which appeared automatically without prior moderation, though the portal operated a notice-and-take-down system and an automatic word filter. After Delfi published an article about a ferry company, a large number of reader comments appeared, some of which contained threats and grossly offensive, hate-speech-laden attacks on an individual associated with the company. Some weeks later, at the individual’s request, Delfi removed the comments; he nevertheless sued, and the Estonian courts held the portal liable and ordered it to pay modest damages. Delfi complained that this liability breached its freedom of expression.
The complaint
The applicant company complained under Article 10 that holding it liable for third-party comments was an unjustified interference with its freedom to impart information.
The Court’s reasoning
The Grand Chamber emphasised the important benefits of the internet for freedom of expression, but also the risks, including the speed at which clearly unlawful speech can spread and cause harm. It stressed that its ruling concerned a specific situation: a large, professionally run, commercial news portal that had published its own article inviting comments and derived economic benefit from the activity — not, for example, a social-media platform, a discussion forum or a private blog.
Assessing the proportionality of the interference, the Court weighed several factors: the extreme, clearly unlawful, hate-speech nature of the comments (which amounted to incitement to hatred and violence and did not require any legal analysis to identify as unlawful); the insufficiency of the portal’s automatic filtering and notice-and-take-down system to prevent such comments from remaining online for a significant time; the difficulty for the injured individual of pursuing the anonymous authors; and the moderate consequences for the portal (a small award). In those particular circumstances, holding the professional portal liable was a justified and proportionate restriction, and there was no violation of Article 10.
The judgment
- by fifteen votes to two, no violation of Article 10.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Delfi is the starting point for the Convention law on intermediary liability. Its limits were quickly clarified in Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary (2016), where the Court found a violation because the impugned comments — offensive but not hate speech or incitement to violence — did not justify liability. Together the cases show that the outcome turns on the nature of the comments, the type of platform, and the steps taken to remove unlawful content.
What this means for applicants
- Large commercial platforms may be liable for clearly unlawful hate speech that they fail to remove promptly, without breaching Article 10.
- The type of content and platform is decisive — the ruling does not extend to all online speech or all hosts.
- Effective moderation and take-down are central to a platform’s position.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Delfi AS v. Estonia decide?
The Grand Chamber held, by fifteen votes to two, that holding a large commercial news portal liable for clearly unlawful hate-speech comments by anonymous readers did not violate Article 10, given the extreme nature of the comments and the portal’s professional, profit-making character.
Does the case make all websites liable for user comments?
No. The Court stressed that its ruling concerned a large, professionally managed commercial news portal, and did not extend to social-media platforms, discussion forums or private blogs.
What kinds of comments were involved?
Comments amounting to hate speech and incitement to violence — clearly unlawful without any need for legal analysis. Later case law held that merely offensive comments do not justify the same liability.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Otegi Mondragon v. Spain
- The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom
- Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary
- Perinçek v. Switzerland
- Von Hannover v. Germany
- Handyside v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.