I am not a legal expert when it comes to the ECHR and the impact of its judgements on national legal systems, so I cannot provide a definitive answer to this question. Nevertheless, I do not remember many cases where its rulings would be felt far and wide. Perhaps with a more general issue and even then it is not set in stone. Christ, even individual states that were found guilty of violating the Convention do not always follow the ruling, which is why the pilot judgements was introduced. So yeah, even if a ruling in general applies to other states, I doubt many will go to the trouble of changing their legal systems.

As for the Electronic Commerce directive, you would need to ask a lawyer. It is likely that its contents will be changed as part of the proposals on the Digital Single Market, but there will be bigger fish to fry during negotiations on that package. We shall have to wait and see.

To answer the last part first, I do not mind going over the minimal requirements. I just wanted to point out that it would appear that Slovenia and other countries go outside what is set in the e-Commerce directive and can actually demand a certain level of liability from websites for what third-party users post there.

As for the system itself, I am a firm believer in free speech. I realise that historical experience makes us European more wary in comparison to the Americans, but I have always felt that extreme language can be countered with words. Those who are confused can be convinced by other means than brute force and those who are far too gone will not be "converted" just because they cannot post their bile on websites (as they have their own digital fora where they can spew their crap). Engaging in the open, rather than forcing into the shadows is my view.

There seems to be some miscommunication due to the usage of different terminology, so apologies if I got something wrong.

Yes, EU primary (Treaties) and secondary legislation (Regulations, Directives and other decisions) and the rulings of the ECJ are binding only on EU Member States. Nevertheless, the standards they set are sometimes picked up by other nations and those who wish to get closer to the EU (read: gain market access, visa-free travel and monies) sign up to adopting certain parts of EU legislation. But yeah, officially, the EU is self-contained.

As concerns the EU joining the European Convention on Human Rights, things are more complicated than that. Yes, it is not a state, but it is a legal entity/has been endowed with a legal personality. This means that in the eyes of international law, it can sign treaties and participate in some aspects of the international community. Do not forget that the EU is a full-fledged member of some international organisations, such as the WTO and the G20 (and others I cannot remember right now). It even tried to get Observer status in the UN General Assembly, but failed.

Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, Member States have decided for the EU as a legal entity to join the Convention as set out in Article 6.2 of the Treaty on European Union. This has caused problems of its own, both on the Council of Europe and EU sides, with experts doubtful of how this will all turn out. As of right now, it is one great experiment in international law and protection of human rights.