The High Court - 2021 IEHC 287: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:05, 25 May 2021

The High Court - 2021 IEHC 287

Court:	The High Court (Ireland)
Jurisdiction:	Ireland
Relevant Law:	Article 6(1)(c) GDPR Article 23 GDPR Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Decided:	19.05.2021
Published:
Parties:	BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF SALESIAN SECONDARY COLLEGE (LIMERICK) FACEBOOK IRELAND LIMITED FACEBOOK IRELAND LIMITED
National Case Number/Name:	2021 IEHC 287
European Case Law Identifier:	2020 No. 1419 P
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	English
Original Source:	High Court Ireland (in English)
Initial Contributor:	Tara Taubman-Bassirian

School request the disclosure of identities of instagram account holders from Facebook. Facebook oppose by requesting a court order. The High Court judge making a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU. The parties were invited to make submissions in respect of the necessity for same. The school authorities filed written submissions on 22 April 2021. Counsel for the school confirmed, at a directions hearing on 18 May 2021, that his side were content to rest on the written submissions and did not require a further oral hearing.

English Summary

Facts

An account on Instagram posted inappropriate, vulgar and sexual messages about staff at Salesian Secondary School in Limerick. For example, some messages ridiculed staff's personal appearance, weight, and sexuality. The photos accompanying the messages did not depict school staff but were sourced from the internet. The account also featured the school's address, crest, and name, and referred to its official website. The messages were deleted and the account taken down after the school's solicitor posted a request on the account. The school was also able to access the password via a student.

The board of management of the school brought an application in the Irish Court seeking an order that Facebook Ireland, who owns Instagram, to disclose all data it holds which evidences the identity of the person(s) behind the account, including name(s), address, contact details, and IP address.

The school authorities had previously contacted Facebook Ireland requesting information with a view to identifying the individuals. Facebook responded stating that they could not disclose user information to a private third party without a court order or request from law enforcement.

Holding

The High Court judge, Mr. Justice Garrett Simons, considered it necessary to refer a number of questions in the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU. In particular:

Do the rights of privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression conferred under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU ('the Charter') imply a right, in principle, to post material anonymously on the internet (subject always to any countervailing objective of public interest)? If so, is this right qualified in the case of the students and staff of a secondary school?
What is the threshold to be met under the GDPR and/or the Charter before the provider of a social media platform can be compelled to disclose, to a third party, information which would identify an otherwise anonymous account user? Is it necessary for the third party seeking disclosure to establish a strong prima facie case of tortious wrongdoing and an intention to pursue legal proceedings? Alternatively, does the board of management of a secondary school have a sufficient interest in disciplining its students and staff for their online activities to entitle it to disclosure, even in the absence of an intention to pursue legal proceedings? If so, is it necessary to establish that the online activities are disruptive to the school environment?
Is there any necessity for a national court to attempt to put the affected party on notice of an application which seeks to identify the operators of an otherwise anonymous user account? Should, for example, the national court direct that the social media platform notify the party and inform them that they have an opportunity to make submissions anonymously to the court?

Comment

The application for a disclosure order presents significant legal issues in respect of privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, or whether an expectation of anonymity on the internet is an aspect of the right to the protection of personal data and the right to freedom of expression. It worth highlighting that the facts date back mid October 2019, while to court decision to refer to the ECJ has been made May 2021, one year and 7 months later. A suivre...

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 === Facts ===
-An account on Instagram posted inappropriate, vulgar and sexual messages about staff at Salesian Secondary School in Limerick. '''For example, some messages ridiculed staff's sexuality, weight, and physical appearance.''' The photos accompanying the messages did not depict school staff but were sourced from the internet. '''The account also featured the school's crest and name, and referred to its official website.''' The messages were deleted and the account taken down after the school's solicitor posted a request on the account. The school was also able to access the password via a student.
+An account on Instagram posted inappropriate, vulgar and sexual messages about staff at Salesian Secondary School in Limerick. For example, some messages ridiculed staff's personal appearance, weight, and sexuality. The photos accompanying the messages did not depict school staff but were sourced from the internet. The account also featured the school's address, crest, and name, and referred to its official website. The messages were deleted and the account taken down after the school's solicitor posted a request on the account. The school was also able to access the password via a student.
-'''The board of management of the school brought an application in the Irish Court seeking an order that Facebook Ireland, who own instagram, reveal the identity of the person(s) behind the account.''' The school expects that the now inactive user account was operated by individuals who are either students or staff members of the school. It seeks to identify these individuals for the stated purpose of “dealing with” them by way of what they describe as a “disciplinary or pastoral response”.
+The board of management of the school brought an application in the Irish Court seeking an order that Facebook Ireland, who owns Instagram, to disclose all data it holds which evidences the identity of the person(s) behind the account, including name(s), address, contact details, and IP address.
 The school authorities had previously contacted Facebook Ireland requesting information with a view to identifying the individuals. Facebook responded stating that they could not disclose  user  information  to  a  private  third  party  without  a  court  order  or  request  from  law  enforcement.
 === Holding ===
-The High Court judge, Mr. Justice Garrett Simons, considered it necessary to refer a number of questions in the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU.
+The High Court judge, Mr. Justice Garrett Simons, considered it necessary to refer a number of questions in the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU. In particular:
-The request for disclosure is made where there is no intention to pursue legal proceedings for tortious wrongdoing against the persons to be identified.
-The disclosure application presents significant  legal  issues  in  respect  of  privacy,  data  protection and freedom of expression, or whether an expectation of anonymity on the internet is an aspect of the right to the protection of personal data and the right to freedom of expression.
-The plaintiffs have invoked Norwich Pharmacal relief or a “disclosure order”
+* Do the rights of privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression conferred under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU ('the Charter') imply  a  right,  in  principle,  to  post material anonymously on  the  internet  (subject  always  to  any  countervailing objective of public interest)?  If so, is this right qualified in the case of the students and staff of a secondary school?
+* What  is  the  threshold  to  be  met  under  the  GDPR and/or the Charter before the provider of a social media platform can be compelled to  disclose,   to  a  third  party,  information  which  would  identify  an  otherwise anonymous account user?  Is it necessary for the third party seeking disclosure to establish  a  strong prima  facie case  of  tortious  wrongdoing  and  an  intention  to pursue  legal  proceedings? Alternatively,  does the  board  of  management  of  a secondary school have a sufficient interest in disciplining its students and staff for their online activities to entitle it to disclosure, even in the absence of an intention to  pursue  legal  proceedings?  If  so,  is  it  necessary  to  establish  that  the  online activities are disruptive to the school environment?
+* Is there any necessity for a national court to attempt to put the affected party on notice of an application which seeks  to  identify  the  operators  of  an  otherwise anonymous user account?  Should, for example, the national court direct that the social  media  platform  notify  the  party  and  inform  them  that  they  have  an opportunity to make submissions anonymously to the court?
 == Comment ==
-It worth highlighting that the facts date back mid October 2019, while to court decision to refer to the ECJ has been made May 2021, one year and 7 months later. A suivre...
+The application for a disclosure order presents significant  legal  issues  in  respect  of  privacy,  data  protection and freedom of expression, or whether an expectation of anonymity on the internet is an aspect of the right to the protection of personal data and the right to freedom of expression. It worth highlighting that the facts date back mid October 2019, while to court decision to refer to the ECJ has been made May 2021, one year and 7 months later. A suivre...
 == Further Resources ==