Response to “Does Julian Assange Merit Support and Solidarity?”
This is a letter sent to Columbia Global Freedom of Expression from an attendee of the”Press Freedom, National Security and Whistleblowers: From Julian Assange to…
This is a letter sent to Columbia Global Freedom of Expression from an attendee of the”Press Freedom, National Security and Whistleblowers: From Julian Assange to…
2018 Global Freedom of Expression Prize Ceremony Low Library, Columbia University April 25, 2018 Tonight, we are celebrating both resilience and conviction. We are…
This article was first published by the European Journalist Observatory and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, and is reposted here with permission and thanks. The…
Vivir Quintana, a Mexican singer, songwriter, and activist, is one of the most influential voices in Latin America today. Her songs demand freedom and justice…
Gherbal Initiative (GI) was established in early 2018 to enhance transparency and fight corruption in the public and private sectors and to shift the political…
“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.”
Yesterday, 3 April 2018, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, along with 93 civil society organisations from across the globe, sent a letter to the Secretary…
New York, June 18, 2015—Columbia University has launched an online global database of freedom of expression case law and court rulings. The novel platform developed…
Thank God, the insanity only lasted three days. The City Hall of São Paulo, the biggest city in South America, surrealistically ordered taxi drivers to…
Hasan Bayar and Ali Gürbüz, the owner and the editor-in-chief of a Turkish newspaper, alleged before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that the…