Global Trends in Freedom of Expression Jurisprudence in 2014
JUSTICE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION in 2014 Columbia University, 10-11 March 2015 Introduction A year ago, when we met for the first Columbia University Jurisprudence…
JUSTICE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION in 2014 Columbia University, 10-11 March 2015 Introduction A year ago, when we met for the first Columbia University Jurisprudence…
Dr. Agnès Callamard gave the speech below at the UN event titled the “70th Anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the…
This decision widens the scope of freedom of expression by considering that blocking or filtering internet search results by name is less acceptable in cases where the contested information refers to professional life of an individual and is in the public interest. When balancing freedom of expression against the right to be forgotten, the Court gave prevalence to the former by highlighting the fact that web users and potential patients have a right to access information in a free manner about persons of public interest in the private sector. Right to access information thus, gives way to the right to be forgotten when dissemination of such information is in the public interest.
“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.”
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…
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…
I have been asked to describe some of the most important cases and relevant legal trends from the OSCE perspective. I have decided to look…
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…