The Court of Justice explains how minors can be protected on pornographic sites without disrupting the European digital market.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that member states can require age verification for access to pornographic websites and can limit the retransmission of certain information about road checks in navigation applications, but only if they comply with European rules regarding online services. The ruling shows that the protection of minors and public safety can justify firm interventions, but states cannot impose general obligations directly on platforms established in other countries of the European Union.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that member states can require age verification on pornographic websites to protect minors and can limit certain information distributed through navigation applications when public order and safety are at stake. The decision does not give states a blank check: measures must target specific services, be proportionate, and comply with the European procedure that protects the free movement of online services.

In short

Member states can require age verification on pornographic websites, but not through a general obligation applied directly to all providers established in other countries of the European Union.

Measures against a specific site may be allowed if the provider has not taken adequate measures to protect minors and if the state complies with the procedure of the Directive on electronic commerce.

States can prohibit the retransmission of certain information about specific road checks through navigation applications, for reasons of public order, security, or public safety.

Before taking action against a provider from another member state, authorities must, as a rule, request the state where the provider is established to intervene and notify the European Commission.

The Court also clarifies an important principle for platforms: an operator that decides through an algorithm how user information is disseminated exercises control over it and cannot be treated automatically as a mere passive host.

The ruling starts from two French disputes that seem, at first glance, very different. The first concerns minors' access to pornographic websites. The second concerns navigation or driving assistance applications that can retransmit user warnings about certain road checks.

In both cases, the real issue was the same: can a member state impose its own rules on an online service established in another country of the European Union? The Court's answer is balanced. Yes, states can intervene for the protection of minors or public safety, but they must respect the European rules built for the single digital market.

The case of pornographic websites was opened by two companies established in the Czech Republic, WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates. They challenged the French mechanism by which the authority ARCOM can request technical measures so that minors cannot access pornographic content just by declaring that they are over 18 years old.

The Court states that the protection of minors is a legitimate and very important objective. Pornography falls into the category of content that can justify strict access control measures, especially in light of children's rights and human dignity, protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

However, France cannot directly impose a general and abstract criminal law obligation on providers established in other member states. In simple terms, a state cannot tell all pornographic websites from other countries of the Union: comply directly with my national rule, without going through the European mechanism.

This mechanism is based on the principle of the country of origin. In the European digital market, an online service is regulated, in principle, by the member state in which the provider is established. Otherwise, the same platform could be required to comply simultaneously with different rules in each member state, which would fragment the digital market.

The Court does not block age verification, however. On the contrary, it states that a state can require a specific provider to implement an age verification system when it has not taken adequate measures to protect minors. The difference is important: the measure must be individual, justified, and proportionate, not a general rule applied directly to all services from other member states.

As a rule, before taking such a measure, the state that wants to intervene must request the state in which the provider is established to act. It must also notify the European Commission and the respective state of its intention. The exception is urgency, but even then, notification must be made as quickly as possible.

The second part of the ruling concerns Coyote System, a company that offers driving assistance and navigation services through geolocation. In France, authorities can temporarily prohibit the retransmission of user messages about certain road checks, for example, checks related to alcohol, drugs, serious crimes, wanted persons, or threats to public order.

The Court accepts that such restrictions can be justified. A state may have real public safety reasons to prevent the dissemination of information that allows the avoidance of sensitive checks. And here, however, the measure must comply with the conditions of the Directive on electronic commerce and be applied within a limited, proportionate, and verifiable framework.

For the ordinary reader, the ruling says something simple: the European Union does not prohibit states from protecting minors or defending public safety in the digital space. But it requires them not to turn these legitimate objectives into a way to unilaterally impose national rules on the entire European market.

Another important element of the decision concerns algorithms. The Court states that an online operator cannot automatically claim to be just a passive intermediary if it uses an algorithm to decide how, when, and in what order user-provided information is disseminated.

This clarification matters beyond the Coyote case. In the digital economy, many platforms do not limit themselves to storing information. They organize, prioritize, hide, combine, or decide when it reaches users. The Court shows that when an operator controls the dissemination of information through an algorithm, its legal status may change.

The passive hosting regime, which can limit the provider's liability for information stored at the request of users, is reserved for services that have a neutral, technical, and passive role. If the operator controls the information in its own interest or that of its service, it can no longer automatically invoke the same protection.

The ruling does not close the disputes in France. The Court of Justice interprets Union law, and the Council of State in France must apply this interpretation in the two cases. The French court will check whether the contested measures comply with the conditions set by the Court, including the individual nature of the measures, proportionality, and notification obligations.

The decision sets a relevant line for future digital disputes in the Union. Member states can intervene against real risks, but they must do so through European instruments, not through national shortcuts. For platforms, the message is equally clear: algorithmic control over information can attract more responsibility.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/stiri/curtea-de-justitie-spune-cum-pot-fi-protejati-minorii-pe-site-uri-pornografice-fara-a-rupe-piata-digitala-europeana