Court backs prosecutor over interview alleging corruption – and he gets his money back
By Emil Weber A European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment has backed a former prosecutor on his comments made in the press alleging corruption in the…
By Emil Weber A European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment has backed a former prosecutor on his comments made in the press alleging corruption in the…
New York, N.Y. (Mar. 28, 2019) — Columbia Global Freedom of Expression has launched a new teaching portal Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers, in partnership with 10 Universities and…
On May 22, 2014 a group of military officers under the name, “National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)” deposed the interim government of Yingluck…
“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.”
Columbia University Calls for Nominations for Second Annual Global Freedom of Expression Prizes NEW YORK, October 11, 2015 — Columbia University today announced that it…
On April 25, 2024, dozens of global free speech advocates joined us for the all-day event at the Italian Academy, Columbia University, New York City,…
This report was originally published by IFEX and is re-posted here with permission and thanks. While the world grapples with a global health pandemic, in…