Vers l’émergence d’une justice on-line

Le réseau Internet s’avère être un outil important pour les juristes. Il rend possible la constitution d’une base de données juridiques, la création de revues de droit, la mise sur pied de forums de discussion sur les questions de droit, la diffusion d’ouvrages, etc. Le réseau Internet facilite les recherches en droit, car grâce aux bases des données, les juristes peuvent facilement accéder notamment aux textes légaux et réglementaires, à la jurisprudence et aux textes de doctrine. Cependant, Internet peut également servir à résoudre les conflits qui surviennent dans les rapports entre les internautes ou entre les internautes et les opérateurs du réseau Internet. La cyberjustice existe déjà, à petite échelle. L’on peut se permettre de mentionner le Centre de médiation et d’arbitrage de l’OMPI, le Virtual Magistrate, l’Online Ombuds Office, le CyberTribunal et le Règlement Uniforme de l’ICANN. S’il faut saluer les efforts qui ont abouti à l’existence de ces instances de cyberjustice, il convient pourtant de reconnaître leurs limites. En effet, ces diverses formes de cyberjustice ont un caractère privé et demeurent incapables d’assurer la répression des infractions. Ensuite, elles ne tiennent pas compte du déséquilibre des rapports entre télétravailleurs et employeurs, puisqu’elles reconnaissent à ces deux groupes des droits équivalents quant au choix de la juridiction et des règles applicables. Enfin, en l’état actuel de la cyberjustice, le sens de la justice est sacrifié à la célérité. Certains droits reconnus aux parties — celui de jouir d’un double degré de juridiction en particulier — sont ignorés. Ces faits montrent bien la nécessité de concevoir des modèles d’institutions plus appropriés en vue de l’instauration d’un certain ordre dans le réseau Internet. C’est dans cette optique que la présente étude offre quelques modèles de juridictions virtuelles, dont une juridiction virtuelle répressive.

Which Legal Standards Should Apply To Web-logs? The present legal position of Internet journals in the European iuris prudence in the light of the European Parliament Committee’s on Culture and Education report and Polish Supreme Court decision

The article discusses the present status of weblogs and examines whether legal standards applicable to traditional press and media should be applied to that specific forum. The analysis is based on two key documents: the Draft Report on the concentration and pluralism in the media in European Union (2007/2253(INI)) of the European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education presented in March 2008 and a landmark decision of the Polish Supreme Court from July 26, 2007 (IV KK 174/07) in the light of present judicial tendency in other European countries. The first of the mentioned documents calls for the “clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs”. It emphasizes that the “undetermined and unindicated status of authors and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits”. The position of the European Parliament, expressed in the document, raises serious questions on the limits of freedom of thought and speech on the Internet and on the degree of acceptable state control. A recent Polish Supreme Court decision, which caused quite a stir in the Polish Internet community, seems to head in the very direction recommended by the EP Culture Committee. In a case of two editors of a web journal (“czasopismo internetowe”) called “Szyciepoprzemysku”, available on-line, accused of publishing a journal without the proper registration, the Polish Supreme Court stated that “journals and periodicals do not lose the character of a press release due solely to the fact that they appear in the form of an  Internet transmission”, and that ‘’the publishing of press in an electronic form, available on the Internet, requires  registration”. The decision was most surprising, as prior lower courts decisions declined the possibility to register Internet periodicals. The accused were acquitted in the name of the constitutional principle of the rule of law (art. 7 of the Polish Constitution) and the ensuing obligation to protect the trust of a citizen to the state (a conviction in this case would break the collateral estoppel rule), however the decision quickly awoke media frenzy and raised the fear of a need to register all websites that were regularly updated. The spokesman of the Polish Supreme Court later explained that the sentence of the Court was not intended to cause a mass registration of all Internet “periodicals” and that neither weblogs nor Internet sites, that were regularly updated, needed registration. Such an interpretation of the Polish press law did not appear clear based only on the original text of the judgment and the decision as such still raises serious practical questions. The article aims to examine the status of Internet logs as press and seeks the compromise between the concerns expressed by European authorities and the freedom of thought and speech exercised on the Internet.