Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Santa Catarina v. Santos Ferraz
Max Mosley v. Google
Bahrain: An Analysis of the Legitimacy of Charges Against Sheikh Maytham Al Salman
This statement is concerned with the legitimacy of the charges laid by the authorities of Bahrain against human rights defender and cleric Sheikh Maytham Al…
#UNCOVERED Conference 2021
#UNCOVERED, the annual conference of the Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) programme, will take place virtually on Wednesday 14 and Thursday 15 April from 14:00…
Richardson v. Raynor
Carmen Aristegui v. Collegiate Tribunal
Ojala v. Finland
The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Turkey on Omnibus Bill No. 6552 amending the Law on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by Means of such Publications, No. 5651 (Internet Law)
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.”