EngelliWeb 2019: An Iceberg of Unseen Internet Censorship in Turkey
Press Release 14 August, 2020 İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association) has been set up formally in August 2017 protect and foster…
Press Release 14 August, 2020 İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association) has been set up formally in August 2017 protect and foster…
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched the Guide for Judicial sustainable development with an emphasis on the SDG 16. Available online, this…
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
NEW YORK, WASHINGTON D.C. – A group of fifty civil society organizations and experts are joining calls by Members of Congress and United States nominees…
Isr., MApp 2065/13 A. v. State of Israel, (March 22,2013) HCJ 442/71 Lansky v. Minister of the Interior, IsrSC 26(2) 337 (1972)
Factsheet on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression Prepared by Erik Tuchtfeld, Head of the humanet3 research group, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law…
Brief View on General Context Throughout 2015 Tunisia continued to mark progress in the area of human rights, rule of law and transitional justice. Promotion…
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.