Introductory Videos on our Case Law Database Available Now!
When the Global Freedom of Expression (GFoE) initiative was launched in 2014, the leading concerns facing freedom of expression were violence against journalists, arbitrary imprisonment,…
When the Global Freedom of Expression (GFoE) initiative was launched in 2014, the leading concerns facing freedom of expression were violence against journalists, arbitrary imprisonment,…
The following article was first published by EURACTIV. The German NetzDG law to counter illegal online speech has become a prototype for internet censorship in…
On 24th March, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
NEW YORK, New York, September 26, 2016 — Columbia Global Freedom of Expression is proud to announce the upcoming launch of its first-ever MOOC (massive…
“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.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines freedom of expression as the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and…
Call for Applications: Annenberg-Oxford Media Policy Summer Institute July 30- August 10 APPLY NOW! The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and…
The Freedom of Expression Association (“İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD”), based in Istanbul, released EngelliWeb’s 2022 report The Constitutional Court in the Shadow of Criminal…