2016 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes – Recipients Announced!
2016 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes Recognize Legal Advocates in Turkey and Supreme Court in Norway NEW YORK, N.Y. (Mar. 14, 2016) — The…
2016 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes Recognize Legal Advocates in Turkey and Supreme Court in Norway NEW YORK, N.Y. (Mar. 14, 2016) — The…
A speech delivered for the side event to launch the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes [1] Organised by the Permanent Mission of Italy and the…
It is important for you to know that the most notorious and emblematic case of Judicial censorship (still active!) in Brazil envolves the newspaper I…
Argentina has developed strong protections for the right to freedom of expression, especially through the Supreme Court’s rich and vast jurisprudence in this area. During…
by Atmaja Tripathy[1] In an era where expression via the internet is recognised as a quintessential part of freedom of speech and expression[2], sovereigns are…
The Government of India has drawn flak this year for its aggressive campaign to intensify the regulation of digital service providers, its latest target being…
“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.”
This article first appeared on the National Law Review In Europe Scandinavia is a region known for very high standards when it comes to freedom…