Transparency in Lebanese Administrations 2019
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…
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…
Executive Summary The protection and promotion of freedom of artistic expression is crucial to both ensure that artists can express themselves freely through various artforms…
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…
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…
On June 21, 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States held that imposing damages on a newspaper for publishing an article detailing the facts…
This decision of the Madras High is binding on the lower courts in the State of Madras. However, it needs to be noted that this decision was taken at a pre-trial stage while determination of the request to quash criminal proceedings under various hate speech enactments. Thus, the arguments relying on the observations of the Court for advancing arguments on merits would have limited persuasive value.
“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…
Executive Summary Until recently, the distribution arrangements for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) had been largely identified on the public web and the dark web.…
This report was published by the Open Technology Fund and is republished here with permission and thanks. Since 2013, Egypt has seen the worst human…