15 Juil European Court of Justice – july 2026
References for a preliminary ruling – Electronic commerce – Directive 2000/31/EC – Information society services – Article 2(h) – Coordinated field – Article 3 – Restriction on the free movement of information society services from another Member State – Derogation – Article 14 – Hosting – Article 15 – No general monitoring obligations – Electronic service to access pornographic content – National legislation prohibiting the provision of such content to minors and requiring the provider to put in place an age verification system – Articles 1 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Electronic driving assistance or geolocation navigation service – National legislation prohibiting the provision of pornographic content to minors – National legislation prohibiting the rebroadcasting of information concerning certain roadside checks.
ECJ, 16 June 2026, C-188/24 WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates and C-190/24 Coyote System.
Link
Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’),
must be interpreted as meaning that :
– the coordinated field, referred to in the first of those provisions, is not limited to the requirements and matters governed by the harmonising provisions of Chapters II and III of that directive and may cover both criminal legislation that is general and abstract as well as legislation pursuing objectives of public policy, security and safety, provided that that legislation lays down requirements, relating to the taking up or pursuit of the activity of information society services, which are not excluded from the coordinated field under Article 2(h)(ii), and that it relates to areas which are not excluded from the scope of that directive by virtue of Article 1(5) thereof or the mechanism referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of that directive, by virtue of paragraph 3 thereof;
– they preclude a Member State from applying a general and abstract obligation under criminal law, intended to prevent access by minors to pornographic content, to information society service providers established in other Member States;
– they do not preclude, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31, read in the light of Articles 1 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and without prejudice to the application of Article 3(5) of that directive, a Member State from making provision for the adoption of measures requiring providers of a given service, established in other Member States, to establish a system for verifying the age of users of pornographic sites, where those providers have not taken the appropriate measures referred to in Article 28b of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive);
– they do not preclude a Member State, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31 and without prejudice to the application of Article 3(5) of that directive, from making provision for the adoption of measures prohibiting providers of a given service, established in other Member States, from rebroadcasting information relating to certain roadside inspections on grounds of public policy, security or safety.
Article 14(1) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31 must be interpreted as meaning that :
– where, by means of an algorithm, the operator of an information society service consisting, inter alia, in the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service determines, in its own interest or that of its service, under what conditions, how and in which order of priority that information is or is not broadcast as part of that service, it exercises control over that information, with the result that it cannot be classified as a provider of an ‘information society service … that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service’, within the meaning of Article 14(1), and that Article 15(1) therefore does not apply to it;
– they do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting, on grounds of public policy, security or safety, the operators of an electronic service which may be classified as an ‘information society service … that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service’, within the meaning of Article 14(1), from rebroadcasting information relating to certain roadside checks.
