{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-591-24", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-591-24)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-16", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:b50dc5", "proof": "sha256:9004176f1e84853ca619cd98db2647294d2110ce5ff27d34c4d38f5aeddac1b5", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-591-24", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19" ], "kind": "front_matter" }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_20", "para_21", "para_22" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [ "para_23" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "European Union law", "paragraphs": [ "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "Directive (EU) 2018/1972", "paragraphs": [ "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "Bulgarian law", "paragraphs": [ "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "Procedure before the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "Consideration of the question referred", "paragraphs": [ "para_101" ], "kind": "questions" }, { "title": "Preliminary observations", "paragraphs": [ "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124" ], "kind": "questions" }, { "title": "Consideration of the question", "paragraphs": [ "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139" ], "kind": "questions" }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141" ], "kind": "costs" }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146" ], "kind": "operative" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "15 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2010/13/EU – Audiovisual media services – Article 1(1)(a)(i) – Concept of ‘audiovisual media services’ – Article 6(1) – Protection of human dignity – National legislation prohibiting broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality – Liability of the service provider – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 11 – Freedom of expression – Article 52(1) – Limitation of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑591/24,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia City, Bulgaria), made by decision of 29 August 2024, received at the Court on 11 September 2024, in the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "‘ Golf Bulgaria’ EOOD", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Savet za elektronni medii,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, B. Smulders, E. Regan, J. Passer and D. Gratsias, Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Registrar: V. Di Bucci,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "–        the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova and R. Stoyanov, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "–        the European Commission, by O. Gariazzo, C. Georgieva, P.-J. Loewenthal and G. Meeßen, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation 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) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 (OJ 2018 L 303, p. 69) (‘Directive 2010/13’), and of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "2         The request has been made in proceedings between ‘Golf Bulgaria’ EOOD, a company incorporated under Bulgarian law, and the Savet za elektronni medii (Electronic Media Council, Bulgaria) (‘the SEM’) concerning the legality of a decision of the SEM imposing an administrative fine on that company for disseminating a video contrary to accepted standards of morality (‘the decision at issue’).", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "The Charter", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "3         Article 11(1) of the Charter provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.’", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "4         Article 52(1) of the Charter is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "‘Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Directive 2010/13", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "5         Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/13 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "(a)      “audiovisual media service” means:", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "(i)      a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 [TFEU], where the principal purpose of the service or a dissociable section thereof is devoted to providing programmes, under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider, to the general public, in order to inform, entertain or educate, by means of electronic communications networks within the meaning of point (a) of Article 2 of [Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33)]; such an audiovisual media service is either a television broadcast as defined in point (e) of this paragraph or an on-demand audiovisual media service as defined in point (g) of this paragraph;", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "(ii)      audiovisual commercial communication;", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "(b)      “programme” means a set of moving images with or without sound constituting an individual item, irrespective of its length, within a schedule or a catalogue established by a media service provider, including feature-length films, video clips, sports events, situation comedies, documentaries, children's programmes and original drama;", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "(c)      “editorial responsibility” means the exercise of effective control both over the selection of the programmes and over their organisation either in a chronological schedule, in the case of television broadcasts, or in a catalogue, in the case of on-demand audiovisual media services. Editorial responsibility does not necessarily imply any legal liability under national law for the content or the services provided;", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "(d)      “media service provider” means the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility for the choice of the audiovisual content of the audiovisual media service and determines the manner in which it is organised;", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "(e)      “television broadcasting” or “television broadcast” (i.e. a linear audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for simultaneous viewing of programmes on the basis of a programme schedule;", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "(g)      “on-demand audiovisual media service” (i.e. a non-linear audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for the viewing of programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service provider;", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "6         Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "‘Member States shall remain free to require media service providers under their jurisdiction to comply with more detailed or stricter rules in the fields coordinated by this Directive, provided that such rules are in compliance with Union law.’", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "7         Article 6 of that directive is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "‘1.      Without prejudice to the obligation of Member States to respect and protect human dignity, Member States shall ensure by appropriate means that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any:", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "(a)      incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of a group based on any of the grounds referred to in Article 21 of the Charter;", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "(b)      public provocation to commit a terrorist offence as set out in Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2017/541 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (OJ 2017 L 88, p. 6)].", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "2.      The measures taken for the purposes of this Article shall be necessary and proportionate and shall respect the rights and observe principles set out in the Charter.’", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "8         Articles 28a and 28b of Directive 2010/13 set out the provisions applicable to video-sharing platform services.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "Directive (EU) 2018/1972", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "9         Under Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Electronic Communications Code (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36), which replaced Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21:", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "(1)      “electronic communications network” means transmission systems, whether or not based on a permanent infrastructure or centralised administration capacity, and, where applicable, switching or routing equipment and other resources, including network elements which are not active, which permit the conveyance of signals by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic means, including satellite networks, fixed (circuit- and packet-switched, including internet) and mobile networks, electricity cable systems, to the extent that they are used for the purpose of transmitting signals, networks used for radio and television broadcasting, and cable television networks, irrespective of the type of information conveyed’.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Bulgarian law", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "10       Article 10(1) of the Zakon za radioto i televisiata (Law on Radio and Television) of 23 September 1998 (DV No 138 of 24 November 1998), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the ZRT’), provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "‘Media service providers shall be guided in the exercise of their activities by the following principles:", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "1.      Guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression;", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "2.      Guaranteeing the right to information;", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "3.      Respect for the confidentiality of information sources;", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "4.      Protection of citizens’ privacy;", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "5.      Prohibition of broadcasts encouraging intolerance between citizens;", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "6.      Prohibition of broadcasts which are contrary to accepted standards of morality, in particular if they contain pornography, glorify or condone cruelty or violence or incite hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality;", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "7.      Guaranteeing the right of reply in programmes;", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "8.      Guaranteeing copyright and related rights in broadcasts and programmes;", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "9.      Safeguarding the purity of the Bulgarian language.’", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "11       Article 17(1) and (2) of that law provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "‘1.      Media service providers shall be liable for the content of media services.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "2.      Media service providers shall be under an obligation not to authorise the production or provision for dissemination of broadcasts which infringe the principles laid down in Article 10 or of broadcasts which convey national, political, ethnic, religious or racial intolerance or glorify or condone cruelty or violence.’", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "12       Article 20(1) and (2) of that law is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "‘1.      [The SEM] shall be an independent specialised body which regulates media services and video-sharing platform services in the cases and in the manner provided for in this Law.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "2.      In carrying out its activities, [the SEM] shall exercise its powers impartially and transparently and in accordance with the objectives of [Directive 2010/13], it shall be guided by the public interest, ensure freedom of expression, the independence of media service providers, media pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity, consumer protection, accessibility, non-discrimination, the proper functioning of the internal market and the promotion of fair competition.’", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "13       On 5 April 2023, Golf Bulgaria, which was at that time registered in the SEM’s public register as a provider of non-linear media services, published an article online entitled ‘Émilie Trottinette mocks a boy with special educational needs’, which included a video taken from the social media platform Facebook. That video, filmed inside a shopping centre, showed a boy with special educational needs moving on his hands and feet, imitating a dog, whilst being kept on a lead by the person identified as Émilie, whilst both she and other members of a group to which she belonged ordered him to ‘sit’, ‘give paw’ or ‘catch’ a cup they were throwing, and said ‘good dog’ whilst patting him on the head when he carried out these commands.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "14       By decision of 29 June 2023, the SEM found that, by publishing that video, Golf Bulgaria had committed an administrative offence, namely an infringement of Article 17(2) of the ZRT, read in conjunction with Article 10(1)(6) thereof, for disseminating a video contrary to accepted standards of morality.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "15       By the contested decision, adopted on 27 July 2023, the SEM imposed an administrative fine of 3 000 Bulgarian leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 1 534) on Golf Bulgaria. That decision having been upheld, in the context of an action brought before the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia District Court, Bulgaria), Golf Bulgaria brought an appeal before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia City, Bulgaria), which is the referring court.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "16       In the context of that appeal, Golf Bulgaria submits, first, that the decision of the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia District Court) is unlawful and incorrect because it was delivered in breach of substantive law and essential procedural requirements, secondly, that, by adopting a decision finding an administrative offence for disseminating a video contrary to accepted standards of morality, the SEM exceeded its powers in relation to the regulation of content since the dissemination of the video at issue in the main proceedings does not fall within the concept of ‘audiovisual media service’ and, thirdly, that the classification of that video as contrary to ‘accepted standards of morality’ was not sufficiently substantiated, since that video depicted an event filmed in a public place, which had already been circulated on social media.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "17       The SEM, for its part, refers to national case-law on the concept of ‘accepted standards of morality’ and, in particular, to a decision of the Konstitutsionen sad (Constitutional Court, Bulgaria), in which it was held that public morality constitutes an area in which national traditions and culture take precedence above all else, that the prohibition on offences against accepted standards of morality goes beyond the need to comply with requirements of decent behaviour established by the traditions of a given society; that it is in the public interest, for example, for accepted standards of morality to be a criterion in the upbringing of adolescents; and that it is therefore not necessary for there to be actual harm in every case. It is apparent from that decision that considerations relating to respect for accepted standards of morality may be understood as criteria of decent behaviour established by a society for its protection, the overriding interest in that regard being that of maintaining the moral integrity of society. Furthermore, the SEM submits that, in the present case, it is common ground that a person with special educational needs was humiliated and suffered a violation of his or her human dignity. The right to freedom of expression is not unlimited and should not lead to the dissemination of content filled with ‘slander’ and ‘cynical and offensive acts towards a vulnerable person’. In addition, the SEM emphasises that media service providers contribute substantially to the formation of public opinion and that, consequently, audiovisual material contrary to accepted standards of morality, national traditions and culture, such as the video at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be accepted.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "18       The referring court notes that, according to national case-law, the concept of ‘accepted standards of morality’ is a general principle, which is in itself a rule of conduct, which must be enshrined as such in a specific rule of law intended to govern social relations in order to constitute a valid rule. In that context, the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria) has stated that ‘the substance of the concept of “accepted standards of morality” is to be inferred from objective categories of morality which are recognised in society but, because of their socio-ethical nature, are not enshrined in law and are in essence linked to the prohibition against harming others by exploiting the disadvantaged position in which they find themselves for age-related, social, health or economic reasons.’", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "19       In that context, and in the light of the citation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13 in the request for a preliminary ruling, it appears that the referring court is uncertain whether it may be considered that the introduction, in the relevant national legislation, of the prohibition on broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality may be regarded as a more detailed or stricter measure, for the purposes of that provision, in comparison with the other measures provided for by that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "20       In addition, that court asks whether the reference to the principle of accepted standards of morality as a basis for the imposition of penalties in the event of infringement of that principle restricts the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "21       In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia City) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "‘Is it permissible under EU law for national legislation, by incorporating into national law a general principle of law as constituted by the observance of “accepted standards of morality”, to make it possible for the Member State to introduce additional measures, to the effect, inter alia, that the liability of a particular information society service within the meaning of Directive 2010/13 is established on the basis of the observance of accepted standards of morality, and, if so, to what extent does the application of that abstract principle as the basis for liability for infringements not restrict the freedom of expression under Article 11 of [the Charter]?’", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Procedure before the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "22       By decision of the President of the Court on 14 November 2024, the present proceedings were stayed pending the decision closing the proceedings in Cases C‑555/23 and C‑556/23.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "23       Following the delivery of the judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla (C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484), the President of the Court, on 1 July 2025, notified that judgment to the referring court, asking it to indicate whether, in the light of that judgment, it wished to maintain the request for a preliminary ruling.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "24       By letter of 30 July 2025, that court stated that it wished to maintain the request for a preliminary ruling. In that regard, it noted that, unlike the case which gave rise to that judgment, the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings concerned the possibility of implementing Directive 2010/13 through the incorporation, in the national legal order, of a general principle of law such as that of ‘accepted standards of morality’, and the extent to which the use of such an abstract principle as a basis for liability in the event of infringement of that principle restricted the freedom of expression referred to in Article 11 of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "25       The Bulgarian Government disputes the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling on the ground, first, that there is no link between the question referred to the Court and the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and, secondly, that there is no indication of the specific provisions of EU law which must be interpreted for the purposes of resolving that dispute.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "26       As regards, in particular, the alleged lack of a link, that government submits that it is apparent from the statement of reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling that it concerns video-sharing platform providers. In that regard, the Bulgarian Government submits that, in setting out the legal framework, the referring court referred to the wording of Articles 28a and 28b of Directive 2010/13, applicable to video-sharing platform services, whereas those articles are not relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings. Furthermore, the question referred to the Court, as formulated by that court, concerns a provider of an ‘information society service within the meaning of Directive 2010/13’, and the possibility of that service provider being held liable in the event of a breach of the requirements imposed by the national law of a Member State. However, information society services are governed not by that directive but by 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’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1), and by Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1). In addition, it is apparent from the facts as set out in the request for a preliminary ruling that Golf Bulgaria is a provider of non-linear media services, which is a different concept from that of an ‘information society service provider’.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "27       According to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that national court is responsible for defining, the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to give a ruling on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 30 April 2026, Nekilnojamojo turto valdymas , C‑544/24, EU:C:2026:356, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "28       In the present case, the request for a preliminary ruling contains a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the dispute in the main proceedings and refers to the wording of the national provisions considered to be applicable to that dispute by the referring court and the national case-law which it also regards as relevant. Furthermore, it is apparent from the statement of reasons in that request that the referring court’s doubts concern the conformity of the ZRT with Directive 2010/13 and Article 11 of the Charter and that those doubts arise from the fact that Article 17(2) of the ZRT, the legal basis for the penalty imposed on Golf Bulgaria for disseminating the video described in paragraph 13 above, is based on a general principle of national law, namely the principle of ‘acceptable standards of morality’. In addition, the link between, on the one hand, Directive 2010/13 and Article 11 of the Charter and, on the other, the provisions of the ZRT applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings is sufficiently apparent from the information set out in that request.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "29       It is true that, as the Bulgarian Government noted, the referring court refers, in the request for a preliminary ruling, to both audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services and cites both provisions of Directive 2010/13 concerning audiovisual media service providers and provisions of that directive concerning providers of video-sharing platforms. Furthermore, in the wording of the question referred for a preliminary ruling, that court refers to an information society service and refers generally to Directive 2010/13 without indicating which specific provisions of that directive should be interpreted.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "30       However, first of all, account must be taken of the fact that, first, it is apparent from the account of the facts set out in the request for a preliminary ruling that Golf Bulgaria was entered in the public register of the SEM as a provider of non-linear media services. Secondly, according to their wording, Article 10(1)(6) and Article 17 of the ZRT, on the basis of which the SEM found that Golf Bulgaria had committed the infringement penalised by the decision at issue, concern media service providers. Thirdly, it is apparent from the statement of reasons for that request that the referring court wished to refer to the Court the first of the five questions which Golf Bulgaria had proposed that it refer for a preliminary ruling, which first question expressly refers to ‘non-linear audiovisual media service providers’.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "31       Accordingly, those factors lead to the conclusion that, despite, first, the use in the wording of the question referred for a preliminary ruling of the words ‘information society service’ and, secondly, the reference in the request for a preliminary ruling to ‘video-sharing platform services’, that question concerns an ‘audiovisual media service’ within the meaning of Directive 2010/13.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "32       Next, the absence of any indication, in the wording of the questions referred to the Court, of specific provisions of EU law does not render a request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible in so far as the information contained in that request enables the Court to identify the provisions of EU law whose interpretation is necessary to enable the referring court to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings. That is the case here, since the statement of reasons for the present request for a preliminary ruling enables the Court to identify the provisions of Directive 2010/13 which must be interpreted for those purposes, as will be explained in paragraphs 50 to 54 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "33       Lastly, the fact that, in setting out the legal framework which it considers to be applicable, the referring court cites provisions of EU law which are not relevant for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings has no bearing on the admissibility of a request for a preliminary ruling.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "34       Accordingly, the present request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "Consideration of the question referred", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "Preliminary observations", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "The classification, first, of the dissemination of the video at issue in the main proceedings as an ‘audiovisual media service’ and, secondly, of the applicant in the main proceedings as a ‘media service provider’, within the meaning of Directive 2010/13", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "35       As is apparent from paragraphs 30 and 31 above, the question referred by the referring court must be understood as referring to an ‘audiovisual media service’ within the meaning of Directive 2010/13 and, therefore, as being based on the premiss that the dissemination of the video penalised by the decision at issue falls within the scope of that concept.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "36       As pointed out in paragraph 16 above, in the appeal which gave rise to the present case, Golf Bulgaria claimed that the dissemination of that video did not fall within the scope of that concept.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "37       In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, under the division of jurisdiction between the European Union judicature and national courts, it is in principle for the national court to determine whether the factual conditions triggering the application of a European Union rule are fulfilled in the case pending before it, while the Court, when giving a preliminary ruling, may, where appropriate, provide clarification to guide the national court in its interpretation (judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "38       Accordingly, it is for the Court of Justice to provide the referring court with the necessary interpretative guidance concerning the concept of ‘audiovisual media service’ within the meaning of that directive, in order for the referring court to ascertain whether the dissemination of the video at issue in the main proceedings is in fact covered by that concept and whether Golf Bulgaria must therefore be regarded, in respect of that broadcast, as a ‘media service provider’ within the meaning of that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "39       In that context, it must be borne in mind that, according to the definition set out in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2010/13, the concept of ‘audiovisual media service’ refers to a service as defined in Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, where the principal purpose of the service or a dissociable section thereof is devoted to providing programmes, under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider, to the general public, in order to inform, entertain or educate, by means of electronic communications networks within the meaning of point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "40       Furthermore, as is apparent from Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13, the concept of ‘programme’, within the meaning of that directive, refers to ‘a set of moving images constituting an individual item, irrespective of its length, within a schedule or a catalogue established by a media service provider, including feature-length films, video clips, sports events, situation comedies, documentaries, children’s programmes and original drama’.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "41       Furthermore, in accordance with Article 1(1)(d) of Directive 2010/13, for the purposes of that directive, ‘media service provider’ is the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility for the choice of the audiovisual content of the audiovisual media service and determines the manner in which it is organised.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "42       In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the video at issue in the main proceedings was published on a website which makes articles and audiovisual content available to the public.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "43       Accordingly, first of all, it appears that that video was disseminated by means of electronic communications networks, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2018/1972, which replaced Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21, which is nevertheless a matter for the referring court to confirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "44       Next, subject also to verification by the referring court, it may be considered that that video is part of the schedule or catalogue offered on the website at issue in the main proceedings, such that it constitutes a ‘programme’, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13 (see, by analogy, judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 48), and that that audiovisual offer meets information or entertainment purposes.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "45       Moreover, there is nothing in the file before the Court to suggest that the service of making videos available on the website at issue in the main proceedings does not have a content and a function independent of those of other services which may be offered on that website. Thus, subject to verification by the referring court, it must be held that the dissemination of the video at issue in the main proceedings forms part of a service whose principal purpose or a dissociable section thereof is the provision of programmes to the general public.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "46       Lastly, as follows from Article 1(1)(a)(i), (c) and (d) of Directive 2010/13, the publication by Golf Bulgaria of the video at issue in the main proceedings on the website at issue in the main proceedings can fall within the concept of ‘audiovisual media service’ only if that company assumes ‘editorial responsibility’, within the meaning of that directive, for the choice of the audiovisual content made available on that website.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "47       That would be the case, inter alia, if it is for Golf Bulgaria to decide, in particular, on the uploading and removal of the videos offered on the website in question, the date and time of the broadcasting of videos on that website, the period of time during which those videos will be accessible to internet users, the structure of that website, the way in which the videos are displayed and can be selected, the video search system and the updating of the content of that website (see, by analogy, judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 53).", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "48       Since the request for a preliminary ruling contains no information in that regard, it will be for the referring court to assess, having regard inter alia to the conditions governing the publication on the website at issue in the main proceedings of the videos transmitted by users, whether Golf Bulgaria actually reserves the right to decide which videos are published, or not, on that website. If it follows from that assessment that the final decision on such a publication lies with that company, the editorial responsibility for the choice of the audiovisual content made available to the public on that website, including the video at issue in the main proceedings, will fall to that company, even if the videos placed online are created and sent by users with a view to their publication on that website.", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "49       In the light of the foregoing considerations, and subject to the verifications which it will be for the referring court to carry out, the answer to the question referred by that court must be based on the premiss that, first, the dissemination of the video penalised by the decision at issue constitutes an ‘audiovisual media service’ within the meaning of Directive 2010/13 and, secondly, Golf Bulgaria falls within the scope of the concept of a ‘media service provider’ within the meaning of that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "The provision of Directive 2010/13 relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "50       It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the video at issue in the main proceedings showed a person with special educational needs being humiliated by a group of people. That led the SEM, inter alia, to classify that video as contrary to ‘accepted standards of morality’, within the meaning of national law, and, therefore, to penalise that company for the dissemination of a broadcast contrary to accepted standards of morality, the SEM having added, before the referring court, that that person had thus suffered a violation of his human dignity.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "51       It must be borne in mind that Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13 requires Member States not only to respect but also to protect human dignity, an obligation which implies, in particular, that it is for those States to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the content of audiovisual media services provided by providers under their jurisdiction does not undermine the value of human dignity (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 67).", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "52       Accordingly, the obligation to respect the value of human dignity and the prohibition on the broadcasting of content undermining that value are covered by that provision (judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 73).", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "53       Therefore, in a context, such as that in the main proceedings, where national legislation prohibiting the dissemination of content contrary to accepted standards of morality has served as the basis for a decision adopted in order to penalise a violation of human dignity, that national legislation may fall within the scope of Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13. By contrast, such legislation, in so far as it serves only to implement the obligation to respect human dignity and to establish a ground for prohibiting the dissemination of content that undermines the value of human dignity laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive, cannot be regarded as containing ‘more detailed’ or ‘stricter’ rules within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that directive and, consequently, does not fall within the scope of the latter provision (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 78).", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "54       Thus, having regard to the particular circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, the question referred by the referring court must be answered in the light of Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "Consideration of the question", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "55       In the light of the preliminary considerations, it must be held that, by its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13, read in the light of Article 11 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from penalising a media service provider for disseminating a video which undermines human dignity, under national legislation prohibiting, on the basis of a general principle of law of that State, broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "56       In order to answer that question, it should, in the first place, be noted that, according to the very words of the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, Member States may choose the form and methods for implementing directives which best ensure the result to be achieved by the directives, and that provision shows that the transposition of a directive into national law does not necessarily require legislative action in each Member State (judgment of 14 February 2012, Flachglas Torgau , C‑204/09, EU:C:2012:71, paragraph 60).", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "57        In particular, according to settled case-law, the existence of general principles or general rules may render superfluous transposition by specific additional legislative or regulatory measures, provided, however, that those principles or rules actually ensure the full application of that directive and that, where the relevant provision of the directive seeks to create rights for individuals, the legal situation arising from those principles or rules is sufficiently precise and clear and that the persons concerned are put in a position to know the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, to be able to rely on them before the national courts (judgment of 10 June 2021, Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) , C‑303/20, EU:C:2021:479, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "58       In the light of that case-law, it may be considered that, although, as pointed out in paragraphs 51 and 52 above, Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13 requires Member States, in the field of audiovisual media services, to protect the value of human dignity by ensuring that content which undermines that value is prohibited, it is not, in principle, ruled out that that provision may be transposed into the domestic legal order of a Member State on the basis of national legislation prohibiting, in accordance with a general principle of the law of that State, broadcasts which are contrary to accepted standards of morality, provided that the legal situation resulting from that national legislation is sufficiently precise and clear to enable media service providers to ascertain that the concept of broadcast contrary to accepted standards of morality covers the dissemination of a video which undermines the value of human dignity.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "59       Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the principle of legal certainty requires, on the one hand, that the rules of law be clear and precise and, on the other, that their application be foreseeable for those subject to the law, in particular, where they may have adverse consequences. That principle requires, inter alia, that legislation must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them, and those persons must be able to ascertain unequivocally their rights and obligations and take steps accordingly (judgment of 21 May 2026, Across Fiduciaria and Others , C‑684/24 et C‑685/24, EU:C:2026:410, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "60       Moreover, that requirement of legal certainty must be observed all the more strictly in the case of a measure liable to have financial consequences. In particular, the Court has held that a penalty, even of a non-criminal nature, cannot be imposed unless it rests on a clear and unambiguous legal basis (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 October 2006, Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun , C‑248/04, EU:C:2006:666, paragraphs 79 and 80 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "61       In that context, it should be noted that, as regards the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties laid down in Article 49(1) of the Charter, which applies to the field of criminal law (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 August 2025, BAJI Trans , C‑544/23, EU:C:2025:614, paragraph 62), that principle, which constitutes a specific expression of the general principle of legal certainty, means, inter alia, that legislation must clearly define offences and the penalties which they attract in order to ensure foreseeability as regards both the definition of the offence and the determination of the penalty. That requirement is satisfied where the individual concerned is in a position to ascertain from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the interpretation of it by the national courts concerned, what acts and omissions will make him or her criminally liable (judgment of 26 June 2025, Makeleio and Zougla , C‑555/23 and C‑556/23, EU:C:2025:484, paragraph 88 and the case-law cited). In that regard and in any event, the position cannot be otherwise as regards penalties which are not criminal in nature.", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "62       It will thus be for the referring court to verify whether a media service provider is able to ascertain, in the light of the wording of the ZRT and, where appropriate, with the assistance of the interpretation given to that law by the Konstitutsionen sad (Constitutional Court) and the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation), that the prohibition on broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality laid down by that national legislation also applies to the dissemination of a video which undermines human dignity.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "63       In the second place, as regards the question whether national legislation displaying the characteristics set out in paragraph 55 above and meeting the requirements of clarity and precision, within the meaning of the case-law set out in paragraphs 57 to 61 above, infringes the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter, it should be borne in mind that the rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 11 are not absolute rights, but must be considered in relation to their function in society. However, in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter must be provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms, and, subject to the principle of proportionality, be necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (judgment of 26 February 2026, Commission v Hungary (Right to provide media services in a radio frequency) , C‑92/23, EU:C:2026:108, paragraphs 365 and 367 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "64       In that regard, Article 1 of the Charter states that human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "65       It is apparent from the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) that the dignity of the human person, as referred to in that article, is not only a fundamental right in itself but constitutes the very basis of fundamental rights. In that regard, those explanations make reference to, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, which enshrined human dignity in the preamble thereto, specifying that ‘recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. It follows from this, according to those explanations, that none of the rights laid down in the Charter may be used to harm the dignity of another person and that the dignity of the human person is part of the substance of the rights laid down therein. It must therefore be respected, even where a right is restricted (judgment of 21 April 2026, Commission v Hungary (Values of the European Union) , C‑769/22, EU:C:2026:326, paragraph 486).", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "66       It follows from the foregoing that an obligation relating to respect for accepted standards of morality, in so far as it constitutes a means of protecting the value of human dignity, by prohibiting the dissemination of content which undermines that value, as required by Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13, first, is based on a legitimate ground for restricting freedom of expression and, secondly, having regard to the resulting restriction of that freedom, necessarily constitutes a proportionate measure within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "67       Accordingly, to that extent, national legislation displaying the characteristics set out in paragraph 55 above and meeting the requirements of clarity and precision, within the meaning of the case-law set out in paragraphs 57 to 61 above, does not infringe the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "68       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question is that Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13, read in the light of Article 11 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from penalising a media service provider for disseminating a video which undermines the value of human dignity, under national legislation prohibiting, on the basis of a general principle of law of that State, broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality, in so far as providers of such services are in a position to ascertain from the wording of that national legislation and, if need be, with the assistance of the interpretation of it by the national courts, that that prohibition covers broadcasts which undermine that value.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "69       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Article 6(1) 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), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018, read in the light of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from penalising a media service provider for disseminating a video which undermines the value of human dignity, under national legislation prohibiting, on the basis of a general principle of law of that State, broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality, in so far as providers of such services are in a position to ascertain from the wording of that national legislation and, if need be, with the assistance of the interpretation of it by the national courts, that that prohibition covers broadcasts which undermine that value.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Bulgarian.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" } ], "operative_part": "On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:\n\nArticle 6(1) 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), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018, read in the light of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,\n\nmust be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from penalising a media service provider for disseminating a video which undermines the value of human dignity, under national legislation prohibiting, on the basis of a general principle of law of that State, broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality, in so far as providers of such services are in a position to ascertain from the wording of that national legislation and, if need be, with the assistance of the interpretation of it by the national courts, that that prohibition covers broadcasts which undermine that value.\n\n*       Language of the case: Bulgarian.", "word_count": 7438, "cites": [ "C-555/23", "C-556/23", "C-544/24", "C-204/09", "C-303/20", "C-684/24", "C-685/24", "C-248/04", "C-544/23", "C-92/23", "C-769/22" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "ce7b94c63406c5c70ba785f7f85770bce948caf5cf18bddef7919a26573d28ca", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0591", "fetched_at": "2026-10-16T12:35:51.92+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-591-24", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-591-24", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-591-24", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-591-24" }, "hash": "sha256:9004176f1e84853ca619cd98db2647294d2110ce5ff27d34c4d38f5aeddac1b5", "version": "legal-2026-10-16", "expires": "2026-10-17T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-16+legal-2026-10-16+2026-10-16T17:00:05", "content_hash": "sha256:9004176f1e84853ca619cd98db2647294d2110ce5ff27d34c4d38f5aeddac1b5", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-16T22:51:41.961Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-591-24", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-591-24" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-591-24" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-591-24" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }