Global Freedom of Expression

Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner

“On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.

2. Decision 2000/520 is invalid.”

Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr

The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed by Flipkart seeking quashing of the first information report/FIR (information on the basis of which criminal proceedings are initiated), held that the ‘Safe Harbour Protection’ guaranteed to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is applicable to criminal cases as well. It further opined that it is not required for the intermediaries to take down content prohibited under the Indian Copyright Act or the Trademark Act only upon receipt of ‘actual knowledge’ pursuant to complaints received. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1, the Court propounded that it is imperative for a court order pursuant to which intermediaries will comply with take down requests in relation to any complaint.