Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 9k
19 June 2020
P-003680/2020
Priority question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Petra Kammerevert (S&D)
 Subject: Dealing with illegal online content

In its decision No 2020-801 DC of 18 June 2020, the French Constitutional Court finds that the dissemination of child pornography or terrorist content constitutes an abuse of the freedom of communication. Standards designed to contain and punish such an act must, however, themselves be appropriate, necessary and proportionate. This is not the case with a provision which provides for the deletion of terrorist or child pornography content within one hour of notification by the authorities. The absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against a deletion order and of a judicial review thereof is deemed to be incompatible with the fundamental freedoms. The threat of a fine of EUR 250 000 in the event of non-compliance is inappropriate. Rules which provide for the removal or rendering inaccessible of manifestly illegal content within 24 hours because of its hateful or sexual character are open to dispute. The operator must examine all the content notified to it, however voluminous, particularly as the assessment must be context-based in each case. Strict deadlines of one hour 24 hours are too short here.

In the light of this decision, will the Commission be keeping Articles 4, 6, 9 to 11 and 18 of its Proposal for a regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (COM(2018)0640) as they are?

If so (whether completely or in part), how does the Commission justify keeping the articles as they are, with reference to each in turn, on the basis of the observations of the French Constitutional Court?

Original language of question: DE
Last updated: 24 June 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy