The ruling emphasizes that judges have the power to review and validate the implementation of punitive measures | To the court, the right to freedom of expression does not preclude measures to save the legality
The Supreme Court (TS) has issued two rulings details on the Sinde law , supporting the ability of management to remove content and terminate services web pages , but while stressing that the judges who will always have the power to review and validate implementation of such measures.
The focus of discussion was precisely this, whether administration should have the authority to remove content or the protection of fundamental rights requires that only judges can do. During the first of its judgments, the Supreme Court resolved this issue by stating that the right to freedom of expression, relied on by the appellants, the Internet Business Network (REI) does not prevent “create an administrative body, design the corresponding procedure and adopt a series of measures to restore legality in the network, provided to respect the legally established constitutional guarantees.
” The ruling clarifies that the administrative commission in charge of these tasks may require the removal of content or urge the suspension of service, but must go to the central courts of administrative litigation “to execute the action taken in the event of defaulting the request made. ” the Intellectual Property Commission , the administrative body of that name, is designed, says the TS-“in order to safeguard intellectual property rights.” The judgment recognizes that this work may be affected fundamental rights, but that situation occurs in other aspects of administrative work. In this case, moreover, the Supreme distinguish between the power to resolve a certain extent and the ability to execute, which itself require judicial authorization. In the second decision, the Supreme Court annulled a clause of Article 20 of the decree regulating the operation of the commission.
This provision provided that if the perpetrator voluntarily withdraws a website content and interrupts the service means that there is an “implicit recognition” that has violated the rules. The TS disproportionate believes this provision because it believes it meets this requirement may be due to many different reasons and even that they are “inconsistent with the recognition of the violation.” Association of Internet Users, who made the report, have recourse to the Constitutional Court and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports “respects” the decision.