The Case of Geo TV [Pakistan]
Blasphemy sentence against Pakistani actors and TV channel
Blasphemy sentence against Pakistani actors and TV channel
Vivir Quintana, a Mexican singer, songwriter, and activist, is one of the most influential voices in Latin America today. Her songs demand freedom and justice…
After a tense legislative proceeding, the Brazilian State of Alagoas passed a statute forbidding professors at public universities from giving their political, religious or ideological…
On Tuesday June 23, 2020, booksellers across the United States and around the world were finally able to satisfy the appetite of their readers, when…
This post originally appeared on the Strasbourg Observers blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks On 30 April 2019, in Kablis v. Russia, the European Court’s…
2018 Global Freedom of Expression Prize Ceremony Low Library, Columbia University April 25, 2018 Tonight, we are celebrating both resilience and conviction. We are…
“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.”
Published in Policy & Internet, 2022 Abstract: In what way can coregulation and regulation (like that included in the NetzDG and envisaged by the Digital…
In February 2017, the Colombian Constitutional Court issued a ruling that could have serious consequences for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression…
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…