(1) The Court upheld an interim injunction issued against an hosting provider running a web forum where the primary defendant posted the statements tarnishing the reputation of a legal entity.
(2) The court explicitly stated that liability is imposed not only on the immediate wrongdoer and any participants in the wrongdoing, but also on anyone who, in any way, knowingly and causally contributes to an infringement by another or creates a risk which could result in the breach of a protected legal right, provided that it is possible and reasonable for them to prevent the infringement. The Court held that the hosting provider should do everything that is technically possible to prevent infringement after being informed of the illegal content by the plaintiff.
(3) Since the Court also made a reference to a legal publication describing the German approach to hosting providers liability in the Alone in the Dark case (BGH I ZR 18/11) and the German doctrine of disturbance liability (Störerhaftung), it seems this German doctrine was also introduced in Slovenian jurisprudence. However, the Court did not explain what is actually meant by “technically possible and reasonable measures” as well as failed to provide any conditions that would define reasonable duties to review.
Topic, claim, or defense
Defamation or Personality Rights
Appellate Domestic Court
Type of service provider
Host (Including Social Networks)
Trigger for OSP obligations
OSP obligation considered
Block or Remove
Monitor or Filter
Type of law
General intermediary liability model
Takedown/Act Upon Knowledge (Includes Notice and Takedown)