CGFoE Celebrates 10th Anniversary and Awards 2024 Prizes
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,…
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,…
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.…
“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.”
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
Frédéric Gras’ presentation for the Justice for Free Expression Conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016. Download the full pdf version below.
As reported by the International Press Institute, new draft legislation, recently introduced in Greece could pave the way for wider freedom of the press in…
Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Rabat Plan of Action, Dr. Agnès S. Callamard sent the video address below for the Rabat+5 Symposium organized by the Government of…
Update: the deadline has been extended until August 15, 2023. The CYRILLA Collaborative has announced a call for proposals. Through the Centre for Intellectual Property…
In February 2017, the Colombian Constitutional Court issued a ruling that could have serious consequences for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression…