Report: Kashmir’s Internet Seige
This report was originally published by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. Summary Kashmir’s Internet Siege provides…
This report was originally published by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. Summary Kashmir’s Internet Siege provides…
Factsheet on Internet Shutdowns in International Law Prepared by Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow at Future of Free Speech Project, Justitia This Factsheet is meant…
Amalia De Simone is an Italian investigative journalist. In 2016, she was honoured with the title of Cavaliere della Repubblica Italiana (“Knight of the Italian…
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Europe and Central Asia Editor explains how the Lukashenka regime’s crackdown on Belarus’s independent…
It was not disputed that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting morals and the rights…
Columbia GFoE filed an amicus curiae brief to uphold international standards on freedom of expression and protect investigative journalism in Peru in a case involving…
Over the last year, GFoE has worked to expand its case law database with coordinated research related to violence against journalists, seeking to capture and…
As reported by the International Press Institute, new draft legislation, recently introduced in Greece could pave the way for wider freedom of the press in…
Summary Since January 2021, our region has witnessed a phenomenal emergence of massive, broad-based uprisings, as citizens push back against the reversal of democratic reforms…
“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.”