The Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the allegations made by Google, Metaplatforms and Ticktock, all based in Ireland, before the law introduced in Austria in 2021 requiring providers of national and foreign communications platforms to set up mechanisms to address potential problems to report and verify. illegal content from the Internet.
The body shows this in an assessment in which it points out that this “national approach is contrary to European Union law” which guarantees the free movement of information society services through the principle of control in the Member State of origin of the service in question.
Austrian law also regulates this regular and transparent publication of complaints about illegal content and makes impressive things possible. Fines of up to 10 million euros for anyone who does not comply with the rules.
In this context, Google, Meta Platforms and TikTok argued that the Austrian law contradicts the EU Information Society Services Directive.
The ECJ recalled that the purpose of the above-mentioned regulations is to create a legal framework to guarantee the free movement of information society services between Member States.
“The directive eliminates the legal obstacles posed by different national regulations for these services, thanks to the principle of control in the Member State of origin,” the organization added.
However, it has been clarified that in certain cases Member States other than the home Member State of the service in question may take measures “to ensure public order, the protection of public health, public security or consumer protection”.
These exceptions must be communicated to the European Commission and the Member State of origin, the ECJ adds in its ruling.
“However, also Member States other than the Member State of origin of the service in question.” Measures of a general and abstract nature cannot be taken: “These apply without distinction to any provider of a category of information society services,” he explained.
The decision that these Member States have the possibility to assume these “general and abstract” obligations would call into question the principle of control in the Member State of origin of the service concerned, a principle on which the European directive is based.
“If the state of destination (in this case Austria) had the right to take such measures, it would.” usurping the regulatory authority of the home Member State (in this case Ireland),” the document explains.
So keep that in mind. This situation would ‘undermine’ mutual trust between the Member States. It would ‘violate’ the principle of mutual recognition and the platforms in question would be subject to different legislation, which would also violate the freedom to provide services and therefore goodwill. Functioning of the internal market.
Source: La Neta Neta
Karen Clayton is a seasoned journalist and author at The Nation Update, with a focus on world news and current events. She has a background in international relations, which gives her a deep understanding of the political, economic and social factors that shape the global landscape. She writes about a wide range of topics, including conflicts, political upheavals, and economic trends, as well as humanitarian crisis and human rights issues.
