Abstract
Neither case law nor legal theory offer a conclusive reply to the question whether an Internet intermediary providing Internet services should be considered liable under Croatian law regarding the acts of its customers which cause damage to a third party. In the absence of a specific provision on secondary liability of Internet intermediaries, the courts struggle to classify the issue as falling under the proper legal norm. The authors of this chapter argue that the right legal bases for judging secondary liability of Internet intermediaries under Croatian law are general provisions on non-contractual obligations regarding liability for one’s own acts or omissions, rather than liability for the acts of another person, and a special provision on liability for defamation. Whatever the basis for liability, a safe harbour is available to those who satisfy the respective statutory conditions. Even in situations where no liability can be established, certain remedies are available against Internet intermediaries to ensure effective protection of third parties’ rights and interests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Because the term “Internet service providers” is mostly used to denote companies which provide Internet access and sometimes additional services such as basic webhosting or e-mail account services, the authors of this Chapter opt for the term “Internet intermediaries”, being a broader term which includes entities providing all sorts of newly-developed services facilitating the use of Internet, such as search engines, social networks, comment sections on blogs and websites.
- 2.
Since there is no all-encompassing database of court decisions in Croatia, it is not possible to claim with certainty that there has not been a decision on the issue which was not taken into account in this Chapter. This said, it is unlikely given that such disputes are as a rule discussed on the Internet.
- 3.
Media Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 59/2004, 84/2011 and 81/2013.
- 4.
Municipal Court in Vukovar, P-737/05, judgement of 5 June 2006.
- 5.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 35/2005, 41/2008, 125/2011 and 78/2015.
- 6.
County Court in Vukovar, Gž-241/07, judgment and decree of 20 November 2007.
- 7.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 53/1991, 91/1992, 112/1999, 129/2000, 88/2001, 117/2003, 88/2005, 2/2007, 96/2008, 84/2008, 123/2008, 57/2011, 25/2013 and 89/2014.
- 8.
Official Journal of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia 29/1978, 39/1985, 46/1985, 57/1989 and Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, 53/1991, 73/1991, 3/1994, 111/1993, 107/1995, 7/1996, 91/1996, 112/1999, 88/2001 and 35/2005.
- 9.
Municipal Court in Vukovar, P-70/2013, judgment of 25 November 2013.
- 10.
See Articles 1046 (damage, including to immaterial property), 1049 (fault) and 110 (fair compensation of damage) of the OA.
- 11.
The authors’ own translation of the provision of Article 19(1) of the OA reads: “Every natural and legal person has the right to protect her or his personality rights under conditions defined by the statute.”
- 12.
- 13.
Such argument is usually coupled with the reservation that an Internet intermediary should be liable if remaining idle although aware of the wrongdoing.
- 14.
- 15.
This is not as problematic in case of liability for the acts of another person, where the causal link has to exist between the act of the factual tortfeasor (for whom the presumptive tortfeasor is liable) and the damage. Gorenc 2014, 1705.
- 16.
See supra n. 10.
- 17.
Different standards of liability are sometimes prescribed for special cases. For instance, causal (objective) liability which exists regardless of the fault is prescribed in cases of liability for damage caused by a hazardous thing or a hazardous activity in Articles 1963 et seq. of the OA. Furthermore, compensation of damage caused by the employee to a third person may as a rule be claimed from the employer, and exceptionally directly from the employee only if the employee intentionally caused the damage (dolus).
- 18.
Article 10, paragraph 1 of the OA.
- 19.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Rev. 387/1998 of 19.03.1998, Izbor 1998/91.
- 20.
Article 10, paragraph 2 of the OA.
- 21.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 167/2003, 79/2007, 80/2011, 125/2011, 141/2013 and 127/2014.
- 22.
See CJEU judgment of 8 September 2016, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, C‑160/15, EU:C:2016:644.
- 23.
- 24.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 173/2003, 54/2005, 76/2007, 30/2009 and 49/2011.
- 25.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 173/2003, 54/2005, 76/2007, 30/2009, and 49/2011.
- 26.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 173/2003, 54/2005, 87/2005, 76/2007, 30/09, 128/2010, 49/2011 and 76/2013.
- 27.
Article 179, paragraph 1 of the CRRRA, Article 78, paragraphs 2–4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 2–4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraph 2–4 of the PA. These two cases are alternative additional options to determining the amount of damages caused.
- 28.
See Matanovac 2006, 164.
- 29.
Blažević et al. 2004, 31.
- 30.
Article 76 of the TA, Article 54 of the IDA and Article 95c of the PA.
- 31.
Klarić and Vedriš 2008, 625; Enciklopedija imovinskog prava i prava udruženog rada, Vol. 2, 1978, 523 et seq.
- 32.
An exception from this provision is contained in Article 99, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Labour Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, 149/09, 61/11, 82/12 and 73/2013), which provides that workers who cause damage to their employer are severally liable for the proportion of the damage they have caused, except where the respective proportions cannot be established in which case they are severally liable for equal shares of damage. This exception has long-term history and has been justified by the fact that the employer has the possibility to establish the extent to which each of the employees causing the same damage contributed to the damage. Being the employees, the tortfeasors are accessible to the employer as the victim, there is no need for the joint and several liability, unlike in fields of law different from labour law. See Enciklopedija imovinskog prava i prava udruženog rada, Vol. 1, 1978, 454.
- 33.
See supra n. 10.
- 34.
To the knowledge of the authors there is no Croatian court decision stating the type of secondary liability of Internet intermediaries.
- 35.
Municipal Court in Rijeka, P-2582/07 of 20 September 2007, confirmed by County Court in Rijeka Gž-366/08 of 16.9.2009.
- 36.
Regardless of the transfer of ownership over that apartment from the collateral provider to the lender for the purpose of securing the loan pursuant to the loan agreement between the lender and the borrower, inability to lease the apartment in question resulted from the fact that the collateral provider failed to transfer the possession of that apartment to the lender upon the borrower’s failure to repay the loan. Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Rev-867/2009-2 of 25 November 2010.
- 37.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Rev-919/2008-2 of 8 July 2010.
- 38.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Revr-30/2007-2 of 14 February 2007.
- 39.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Revr-689/2008-2 of 1 April 2009.
- 40.
In this last case, the three defendants, Croatian companies, had infringed the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff, a Swedish company, by producing and marketing the goods (bottle, package and medallion) because aspects of these goods were either protected by trademark law (trademark ABSOLUT COUNTRY OF SWEDEN for spirits) as there was likelihood of confusion due to identity/similarity between the signs and goods in questions as well as under unfair competition law as the goods contained signs and information which created or could have created confusion regarding their origin, the manner of production, quality or their other properties. High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia, Pž-6665/02-3 of 17 May 2006.
- 41.
Gorenc 2014, 94; Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Gž-345/78 of 25 January 1979, PSP 15/26.; Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Rev.-1789/95 of 30 November 1999; Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Rev-1264/97 of 6 December 2000.
- 42.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Rev-2659/91 of 5 March 1992., Izbor 94/100.
- 43.
Encikolpedija imovinskog prava i prava udruženog rada, Vol. 2, 1978, 529.
- 44.
Gorenc 2014, 1792 et seq.
- 45.
Article 1085, paragraph 1 of the OA.
- 46.
Article 1085, paragraphs 2–3 of the OA. Article 1046 of the OA states that damage consists of actual damage (damnum emergens) and lost profit (lucrum cesans).
- 47.
Article 1046 of the OA.
- 48.
Article 1047 of the OA.
- 49.
Article 187, paragraph 2 of the CPA.
- 50.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 112/2012, 25/2013 and 93/2014.
- 51.
Article 346, paragraph 1 of the EA.
- 52.
Article 349 of the EA.
- 53.
Article 76, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the PA.
- 54.
Article 76, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the PA.
- 55.
Article 76, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the PA.
- 56.
Official Journal of the European Union, L 157 of 30 April 2004.
- 57.
Article 40 of the MA.
- 58.
The authors’ translation of the Croatian text of Article 2 of the MA reads: “Media are: newspapers, and other prints, radio and television programmes, programs of new agencies, electronic publications, teletext and other forms of daily or periodic publishing of editorially shaped program contents by transmission of text, voice, sound or picture. Media are not: books, textbooks, bulletins, catalogues or other holders of published information intended exclusively for educational, scientific and cultural process, advertising, business communication, work of the companies, institutes and institutions, associations, political parties, religious and other organisations, school gazettes, Offical Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, official gazettes of the local self-government and regional units and other official notifications, posters, flyers, prospects and banners, as well as video pages without live picture and other information free of charge, unless otherwise provided for in this Act.”
- 59.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 125/11 and 144/12.
- 60.
See Article 28, paragraph 1 of the CRA.
- 61.
See Article 28, paragraph 2 of the CRA.
- 62.
See Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 151/03, 110/07, 45/11 and 143/12.
- 63.
There were two parallel proceedings against the blog owner: one for the defamation of the husband: Municipal Court in Ilok, K-177/06, judgment of 4 July 2007, and the other of the wife: Municipal Court in Ilok K-178/06, judgment of 28 February 2007. Both contained the same reasoning. They were both confirmed by the second instance courts, for the husband: County Court in Vukovar, Kž-458/07, judgment of 17 March 2009, and for the wife: County Court in Vukovar, Kž-223/07, judgment of 13 November 2007. This judgment was confirmed by the County Court in Vukovar, Kž-5/11, of 13 January 2011 which became final. The County court states that the blog owner actively participated in stating and disseminating the defamatory content and that he also enabled further defamation by publishing defamatory comments.
- 64.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Kzz-34/09, judgment of 20 October 2009.
- 65.
Municipal Court in Vukovar K-568/09, judgment of 28 October 2010. This judgment concerns only husband’s case.
- 66.
County Court in Vukovar, Kž-5/11, of 13 January 2011.
- 67.
For details, see Kaleb 2008.
- 68.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 173/2003, 67/2008, 130/2011, 36/2009 and 30/2014.
- 69.
See Republika Hrvatska, Ministarstvo Gospodarstva, Nacrt prijedloga Zakona o elektroničkoj trgovini, sa konačnim prijedlogom zakona, Zagreb, 2003., available at: http://hidra.srce.hr/webpac-hidra-rdrh-pregled1/?rm=results&last_PAGER_offset=0&show_full=1&v=sloboda%20pru%BEanja%20usluga%20004713&f=SubjectIndexHR&path=hidra-rdrh%233983, last visit: 3 December 2013.
- 70.
This is the authors’ own translation of the Croatian text of Article 2, subparagraph 4 of the ECA, which reads: “davatelj usluga – pravna ili fizička osoba koja pruža usluge informacijskog društva”.
- 71.
This is the authors’ translation of the Croatian text of Article 2, subparagraph 3 of the ECA which reads: “usluga informacijskog društva – usluga koja se uz naknadu pruža elektroničkim putem na individualni zahtjev korisnika, a posebno Internet prodaja robe i usluga, nuđenje podataka na Internetu, reklamiranje putem Interneta, elektronički pretraživači, te mogućnost traženja podataka i usluga koje se prenose elektroničkom mrežom, posreduju u pristupu mreži ili pohranjuju podatke korisnika”.
- 72.
See Recital 18 of the E-Commerce Directive.
- 73.
See Article 17 of the ECA.
- 74.
See Article 18 of the ECA.
- 75.
See Republika Hrvatska, Ministarstvo Gospodarstva, Nacrt prijedloga Zakona o elektroničkoj trgovini, sa konačnim prijedlogom zakona, Zagreb, 2003., available at: http://hidra.srce.hr/webpac-hidra-rdrh-pregled1/?rm=results&last_PAGER_offset=0&show_full=1&v=sloboda%20pru%BEanja%20usluga%20004713&f=SubjectIndexHR&path=hidra-rdrh%233983, last visit: 3 December 2013.
- 76.
Prior to the third amendments to the ECA in 2011, this Article had the title “General Provision”. The title was changed to the current one following a comment of the European Commission. See VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE, Konačni prijedlog Zakona o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o elektroničkoj trgovini, Zagreb, September 2011, available at: https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//Sjednice/Arhiva//155_6.pdf, d.bGE, last visit: 8 January 2014.
- 77.
This is the authors’ own translation of the Croatian text of Article 19 of the ECA, which reads: “Davatelj usluga koji putem elektroničkog upućivanja otvori pristup trećim podacima nije odgovoran za te informacije:
-
ako nema saznanja niti je mogao znati o nedopuštenom djelovanju korisnika ili sadržaju podataka u tim informacijama,
-
ako odmah čim je saznao da se radi o nedopuštenom djelovanju ili podatku ukloni ili onemogući pristup podacima.”
-
- 78.
CJEU judgment of 8 September 2016, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, C-160/15, EU:C:2016:644. See also CJEU judgment of 13 February 2014, Svensson and Others, C-466/12, EU:C:2014:76.
- 79.
OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
- 80.
Compared to Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph (c) of the E-Commerce Directive, the proviso “specified in a manner widely recognised and used by industry” is left out of the ECA version of the caching safe harbour.
- 81.
Compared to Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d) of the E-Commerce Directive, the proviso “widely recognised and used by industry” is left out of the ECA version of the caching safe harbour.
- 82.
Municipal Court in Zagreb, Pn-4423/06.
- 83.
For example, Index.hr.
- 84.
Interestingly, the owner of the blog platform was never sued by the plaintiff, even though its identity was very well known to the plaintiff.
- 85.
See Article 185, paragraph 5 of the CRRA.
- 86.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 112/12. A person seeking the issuing of preliminary measures related to pecuniary claims has to prove: (a) the likelihood that the claim exists, and (b) the risk that in the absence of such measures the other party will prevent or make it significantly more difficult to collect on a claim by transferring, hiding or otherwise disposing of her property. However, the court may dispense with these conditions provided the person seeking the provisional measures provides a guarantee to indemnify any damage that might be suffered by the other party. See Article 344, paragraph 1, Article 346, paragraph 1 and Article 349 of the EA.
- 87.
See Article 79b of the TA.
- 88.
See Article 56d of the IDA.
- 89.
See Article 95j of the PA.
- 90.
See Article 187, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the CRRA.
- 91.
See Article 187, paragraph 5 of the CA.
- 92.
See Article 79a of the TA.
- 93.
See Article 56c of the IDA.
- 94.
See Article 95i of the PA.
- 95.
See Article 76 of the TA, Article 54 of the IDA and Article 95c of the PA.
- 96.
Article 76, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the PA.
- 97.
Article 76, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the PA.
- 98.
Article 76, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the TA, Article 54, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the IDA and Article 95c, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the PA.
- 99.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia 116/08, 123/08 and 49/11. The State Inspectorate as an independent body ceased to exist on 1 January 2014, when the Act Amending and Supplementing the Organization and Jurisdiction of Ministries and Other Central Bodies of State Administration came into effect. The latter Act was part of the reform aimed at reorganising the Croatian state administration. It did not eliminate or change the authorities of the inspectors under the State Inspectorate Act, but simply transferred the officials acting as inspectors to several government ministries, depending of the area which a particular inspector covered. For example, inspectors which were in charge of areas such as transactions of goods and services, intellectual property protection and prohibition and prevention of unregistered activities and illicit trade are now part of the Ministry of Finance, while the inspectors which were in charge of labour issues are now part of the Ministry of Labour and Pension System.
- 100.
See Article 27 of the STA.
- 101.
See Article 34 of the STA.
- 102.
See Article 30 and Article 61 of the STA.
- 103.
See Article 28 of the STA.
- 104.
See Article 33 of the STA.
- 105.
See Article 33 paragraph 3 of the STA.
- 106.
See Republic of Croatia, State Inspectorate, Regional Unit Zagreb, Minutes on the performed inspection of business activities of POSLuH d.o.o. Zagreb of 11 October 2010, Class: 336-01/10-02/15, Reg. no: 556-16-01-01/42-10-101.
References
BLAŽEVIĆ, Borislav, MATANOVAC, Romana and PARAĆ, Kamelija. 2004. Građanskopravna zaštita autorskog prava i srodnih prava. Zbornik Hrvatskog društva za autorsko pravo 5: 13–96.
BUKOVAC PUVAČA, Maja, SLAKOPER, Zvonimir and BELANIĆ, Loris. 2015. Obvezno pravo. Posebni dio II., Izvanugovorni odnosi. Zagreb: Novi informator.
Enciklopedija imovinskog prava i prava udruženog rada, vol. 1, Beograd: Službeni list SFRJ, 1978.
GORENC, Vilim, et al. 2014. Komenatar zakona o obveznim odnosima. Zagreb: Narodne novine.
HENNEBERG, Ivan. 2001. Autorsko pravo, 2nd ed., Zagreb: Informator.
KALEB, Zorislav. 2008. Djelovanje kaznene presude na parnični postupak. Zagreb: Vizura.
KLARIĆ, Petar and VEDRIŠ, Mladen. 2008. Građansko pravo, 11th ed., Zagreb: Narodne novine.
MATANOVAC, Romana. 2006. Građanskopravna zaštita prava intelektualnog vlasništva u odnosu prema Direktivi 2004/48/EZ o provedbi prava intelektualnog vlasništva – analiza stanja i nagovještaj promjena. In Hrvatsko pravo intelektualnog vlasništva u svjetlu pristupanja Europskoj uniji, ed. MATANOVAC, Romana 115–168. Zagreb: Narodne novine/Državni zavod za intelektualno vlasništvo.
SLAKOPER, Zvonimir, et al. 2005. Susdska praksa 1980.-2005 - i bibliografija radova uz Zakon o obveznim odnosima. Zagreb: RRIF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kunda, I., Mutabžija, J. (2017). Secondary Liability of Internet Intermediaries and Safe Harbours Under Croatian Law. In: Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55028-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55030-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)