switch off doodleshow doodle

The Juscutum Law Firm legal position in the case of EX.ua

About resource locking

The decree against EX.ua was made in violation with applicable laws. Because legal relations in the sphere of domain names delegation are governed by “rules of the domain. UA.” These rules do not include provisions that would regulate the procedure prohibition of use the domain by the decision of the interrogation officer.
 
Moreover, the rules contain a clear statement that questions about using of domain belong to the category of domain disputes and should be settled in court.
 
Specified require in the decree of the interrogation officer about the prohibition of using the domain, is unfounded, rendered in violation with the basic principles of the Interior, under Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On Police”, which states that the activities of the police based on the principles of legality, humanism, respect for the individual and social justice. It is also worth to note that the Organization of United Nations recognized the right of access to Internet as one of the inalienable rights of human.
 
According to the document adopted by the UN, the dissemination of information in Internet should be as free as possible, limited only by situations where it may lead to a violation of someone’s rights.
 
As noted above, the selected method of protection of violated rights is not unique and leads to a massive violation rights of others.
 
Under Part 1 Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine everyone has the right to freely collect, store, use and disseminate information by oral, written or other way – of their choice.
 
According to Part 1 of Article 5 of the Law “On Information” one of the basic principles of informational relations are the availability of information and freedom of its exchange. A resource like www.ex.ua, is a mean of exchange information, and the blocking of its work basis only on decree of interrogation officer during the pre-trial, including that the fact that violation of law is not proven, is a significant limitation of the right to exchange the information.
 
If accept the fact that the lock of the resource within investigation, without litigation, without court and law, then tomorrow it will be possible easily close any site, any information resource, online media.
 
The situation is showed unwillingness of Ukrainian legislation to disputes about the intellectual property in the Internet.
 
However, the phrase about the letter of the law and equity of statute is not for nothing. And in terms of legal uncertainty should be based on conformity investigative actions aims of the investigation and the rights of other individuals.
 
On the persecution of users EX.ua
 
At this moment, the case is against the five persons who have placed specific files under exactly accounts.
 
About damage calculation
 
While it will not be completely recovered the legal status of the resource EX.ua, estimate the exact amount of damage is not possible. But we want to emphasize that the damage caused to citizens of Ukraine as a result of blocking the resource activity and their access to own files, which have no signs of counterfeit goods may be much higher than the damage caused by illegal distribution of computer programs, which became the basis for initiation of criminal case.
 
About the anti-piracy campaign
Attempt to present the lock or persecution of resource as anti-piracy campaign should not be taken seriously.
 
We believe that it is wrong to represent and show such situation as a sure-fire way of anti-piracy campaign.
 
Resource is used legally as a tool that users can use like they want. The resource has a rule common to all: the right holder refers, and the content is loaded.
 
The legal position is that the resource should not held the liable for pirated content posted by users.

Administration cannot and should not monitor and establish the fact of placing pirated content because they do not have the authority to make decisions about the legality of placing files.
 
The case was initiated on the fact, and it is not clear why, in order to establish and find five a counts, it was necessary to withdraw such amount of servers.
 
Large-scale actions of inquest were completely inconsistent with set task, and that’s why we consider them illegal. We would like that the whole situation was returned to the legal field.