İ.A. v. Turkey
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…
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…
IFEX-SPP: Paraguay UPR, Third Cycle Executive Summary: The following is a joint report submitted by the IFEX-SPP Coalition. The objective of the report is to…
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…
On November 2, the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, the UN Secretary General António Guterres has invited the world to pay…
Summary The Digital Platform for the Safety of Journalists, announced by President Ramaphosa of South Africa on January 2021, was conceptualized over the last five…
New York, 10 August 2015 – Columbia Global Freedom of Expression urges the Bahrain Government to drop, immediately and unconditionally, all charges and the travel…
On June 16, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered judgement on Delfi AS v. Estonia. Delfi AS, one of Estonia’s largest online news…
The UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Irene Khan, is looking for a Legal Adviser to join her team. The key priority…
“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.”
The Jakarta Recommendations are the outcome of discussions at a regional consultation on “Expression, Opinion and Religious Freedoms in Asia”, held in Jakarta, Indonesia on…