The nature of the responsibility of the owner of an electronic newspaper / electronic form
The nature of the responsibility of the owner of an electronic newspaper / electronic form
In many respects, it is argued that electronic newspapers and other websites such as blogs are considered to be a form (see e-lawyer 's views ), but more specifically, that law 1178/1981 applies to them (see I. Karakosta, Law & Internet, 2001, p. 54 et seq.).
Considering that the publication on web sites is subject to the claims of the above law, it is the responsibility of the publisher and the publisher, the owner and the manager of a website, as well as the access provider. This view is not sufficiently substantiated, as the law refers to printed matter, newspapers and magazines, while Article 4 § 10 of Law 2328/1995 extends to radio and television stations.
The Supreme Court of Cassation makes it clear that Law 1178/1981 is not applicable to electronic sites and is very important because there can no longer be any doubt about this issue.
Similarly, we can not assume that the Internet is subject to the constitutional provisions for SMEs, as constitutional protection for the press (Article 14s) is narrowly worded, as is also clear from Article 15 § 1S which states that the protective provisions for the provisions of Article 14 shall not apply to cinema, phonograph, radio, television and any other similar means of speech or performance. It is clear that the Internet also falls under this exception, as a tool similar to that of the above mentioned electronic media.
Below the text of the decision.
No 1752/2007
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PIGOS
A 2 'Political Department
It was composed by the Judges: Ioannis Papanikolaou, President-in-Chief Areopagitis, (Vice President and the most senior Areopagitis), Rena Asimakopoulou, Charalambos Zoi, Athanasios Koutromanos and Ioannis Papoutsis, Areopagites. SUSPENDED at a public meeting at his Store on April 23, 2007, with the presence of Secretary Catherine Sitara, in order to adjudicate the case between:
The appellant: ..., who was represented by the attorney-at-law of John Georgopoulos. The respondent: ..., who was represented in person in his capacity as a lawyer.
The litigation began with the action of the defendant, filed on 18-12-2002, filed with the Polymeles Protodikio Piraeus. Decisions were issued: 4730/2004 of the same Court and 469/2005 of the Piraeus Court of Appeal. The appeal against the last decision is requested by the appellant in his application dated 31-1-2006. During the discussion of this request, which was expressed in the table, the parties were represented as noted above. The rapporteur, Areopagitis Ioannis Papanikolaou, read out his report of 2-4-2007, in which he recommended the rejection of the appealed appeal. The appellant's representative requested that the application be accepted, that the addressee of the defendant rejected it, and that the other party should be ordered to pay the costs.
CONSIDERED UNDER THE LAW
I. The appellant at the beginning of the first plea of his application refers to paragraph 1 of the sole article of Law 1178/1981, according to which "The owner of all forms is obliged to indemnify fully for the unlawful property damage, as well as the financial satisfaction for the moral harm, which has been guiltily served by a publication prejudicial to the honor or reputation of any person, even if the fault under Article 914 of the Criminal Code, the intention under Article 919 of the CC and the knowledge under Article 920 of the Civil Code ignorant ignorance occurs to the author v of the publication or if he is unknown, the issuer or the form structure Director ". Next, in the same plea, the appellant cites two assumptions of the judgment under appeal, that is the one in which the owner and the publisher of the electronic text and periodically repeated with the individual students at the University of Piraeus under the title "...", which is published in a specific e-mail address is the teacher ... and the other, in which there are co-owners and co-owners of the same e-mail address (e-mail address), among which he (the appellant), in order ultimately to bind the same decision that, with these assumptions and without further admitting the lawful way of acquiring these properties was observed, he directly violated the aforementioned substantive law of paragraph 1 of the article alone of Law 1178/1981 and thus committed the defect under number 1 of article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This plea is unfounded because it is based on an erroneous condition, since it is clear from the above paragraph 1 of the article alone of Law 1178/1981 that it refers only to the liability of the owner of the form and does not regulate the property etc. . the e-mail address or e-mail address. In any event, that plea is irrelevant in that it affects the appellant's successive and overwhelming assumption, namely that which supports the appellant's liability in his capacity as co-owner and co-owner, whereas the main reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which independently supports the operative part of the contested decision, is that the appellant's liability is based on his capacity as the author of the offending petition. 1178/1981 clearly states that it refers only to the civil liability of the owner of the form and does not regulate the ownership, etc. the e-mail address or e-mail address. In any event, that plea is irrelevant since it affects the appellant's superfluous and overwhelming assumption, namely that which supports the appellant's liability in his capacity as co-owner and co-owner, whereas the main reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which independently supports the operative part of the contested decision, is that the appellant's liability is based on his capacity as the author of the offending petition. 1178/1981 clearly states that it refers only to the civil liability of the owner of the form and does not regulate the ownership, etc. the e-mail address or e-mail address. In any event, that plea is irrelevant since it affects the appellant's superfluous and overwhelming assumption, namely that which supports the appellant's liability in his capacity as co-owner and co-owner, whereas the main reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which independently supports the operative part of the contested decision, is that the appellant's liability is based on his capacity as the author of the offending petition.
II. Under Article 559 of the EC Treaty, 8th par. a CFP is also allowed if the court, despite the law, took into account things that were not proposed. In the present case, the appellant complains that the respondent has accepted that the author of the disputed publication is the author, without the plaintiff and the defendant already being able to claim this in his case, and so the Court of Appeal committed the defect by the number 8th. of the Code of Civil Procedure 559, taking into account things not proposed. This plea is unfounded, since the permissible review of its appeal of 18.12.2002 by the Supreme Court (CFC 561 (2)) clearly indicates from its entirety that the plaintiff claims, principally that the author of the disputed electronic text is the defendant and the appellant, that is, he "wrote"
In many respects, it is argued that electronic newspapers and other websites such as blogs are considered to be a form (see e-lawyer 's views ), but more specifically, that law 1178/1981 applies to them (see I. Karakosta, Law & Internet, 2001, p. 54 et seq.).
Considering that the publication on web sites is subject to the claims of the above law, it is the responsibility of the publisher and the publisher, the owner and the manager of a website, as well as the access provider. This view is not sufficiently substantiated, as the law refers to printed matter, newspapers and magazines, while Article 4 § 10 of Law 2328/1995 extends to radio and television stations.
The Supreme Court of Cassation makes it clear that Law 1178/1981 is not applicable to electronic sites and is very important because there can no longer be any doubt about this issue.
Similarly, we can not assume that the Internet is subject to the constitutional provisions for SMEs, as constitutional protection for the press (Article 14s) is narrowly worded, as is also clear from Article 15 § 1S which states that the protective provisions for the provisions of Article 14 shall not apply to cinema, phonograph, radio, television and any other similar means of speech or performance. It is clear that the Internet also falls under this exception, as a tool similar to that of the above mentioned electronic media.
Below the text of the decision.
No 1752/2007
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PIGOS
A 2 'Political Department
It was composed by the Judges: Ioannis Papanikolaou, President-in-Chief Areopagitis, (Vice President and the most senior Areopagitis), Rena Asimakopoulou, Charalambos Zoi, Athanasios Koutromanos and Ioannis Papoutsis, Areopagites. SUSPENDED at a public meeting at his Store on April 23, 2007, with the presence of Secretary Catherine Sitara, in order to adjudicate the case between:
The appellant: ..., who was represented by the attorney-at-law of John Georgopoulos. The respondent: ..., who was represented in person in his capacity as a lawyer.
The litigation began with the action of the defendant, filed on 18-12-2002, filed with the Polymeles Protodikio Piraeus. Decisions were issued: 4730/2004 of the same Court and 469/2005 of the Piraeus Court of Appeal. The appeal against the last decision is requested by the appellant in his application dated 31-1-2006. During the discussion of this request, which was expressed in the table, the parties were represented as noted above. The rapporteur, Areopagitis Ioannis Papanikolaou, read out his report of 2-4-2007, in which he recommended the rejection of the appealed appeal. The appellant's representative requested that the application be accepted, that the addressee of the defendant rejected it, and that the other party should be ordered to pay the costs.
CONSIDERED UNDER THE LAW
I. The appellant at the beginning of the first plea of his application refers to paragraph 1 of the sole article of Law 1178/1981, according to which "The owner of all forms is obliged to indemnify fully for the unlawful property damage, as well as the financial satisfaction for the moral harm, which has been guiltily served by a publication prejudicial to the honor or reputation of any person, even if the fault under Article 914 of the Criminal Code, the intention under Article 919 of the CC and the knowledge under Article 920 of the Civil Code ignorant ignorance occurs to the author v of the publication or if he is unknown, the issuer or the form structure Director ". Next, in the same plea, the appellant cites two assumptions of the judgment under appeal, that is the one in which the owner and the publisher of the electronic text and periodically repeated with the individual students at the University of Piraeus under the title "...", which is published in a specific e-mail address is the teacher ... and the other, in which there are co-owners and co-owners of the same e-mail address (e-mail address), among which he (the appellant), in order ultimately to bind the same decision that, with these assumptions and without further admitting the lawful way of acquiring these properties was observed, he directly violated the aforementioned substantive law of paragraph 1 of the article alone of Law 1178/1981 and thus committed the defect under number 1 of article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This plea is unfounded because it is based on an erroneous condition, since it is clear from the above paragraph 1 of the article alone of Law 1178/1981 that it refers only to the liability of the owner of the form and does not regulate the property etc. . the e-mail address or e-mail address. In any event, that plea is irrelevant in that it affects the appellant's successive and overwhelming assumption, namely that which supports the appellant's liability in his capacity as co-owner and co-owner, whereas the main reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which independently supports the operative part of the contested decision, is that the appellant's liability is based on his capacity as the author of the offending petition. 1178/1981 clearly states that it refers only to the civil liability of the owner of the form and does not regulate the ownership, etc. the e-mail address or e-mail address. In any event, that plea is irrelevant since it affects the appellant's superfluous and overwhelming assumption, namely that which supports the appellant's liability in his capacity as co-owner and co-owner, whereas the main reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which independently supports the operative part of the contested decision, is that the appellant's liability is based on his capacity as the author of the offending petition. 1178/1981 clearly states that it refers only to the civil liability of the owner of the form and does not regulate the ownership, etc. the e-mail address or e-mail address. In any event, that plea is irrelevant since it affects the appellant's superfluous and overwhelming assumption, namely that which supports the appellant's liability in his capacity as co-owner and co-owner, whereas the main reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which independently supports the operative part of the contested decision, is that the appellant's liability is based on his capacity as the author of the offending petition.
II. Under Article 559 of the EC Treaty, 8th par. a CFP is also allowed if the court, despite the law, took into account things that were not proposed. In the present case, the appellant complains that the respondent has accepted that the author of the disputed publication is the author, without the plaintiff and the defendant already being able to claim this in his case, and so the Court of Appeal committed the defect by the number 8th. of the Code of Civil Procedure 559, taking into account things not proposed. This plea is unfounded, since the permissible review of its appeal of 18.12.2002 by the Supreme Court (CFC 561 (2)) clearly indicates from its entirety that the plaintiff claims, principally that the author of the disputed electronic text is the defendant and the appellant, that is, he "wrote"
About Jhon Petter
No comments