OSCE Perspective: Important Freedom of Expression and Information Cases and Relevant Legal Trends
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
“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.”
Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015, first proposed by the National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology last April in an effort to update…
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,…