Agnes Callamard and Bach Avezdjanov: Globalization of Norms
A presentation prepared by Agnes Callamard and Bach Avezdjanov for the annual Justice for Free Expression conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016.
A presentation prepared by Agnes Callamard and Bach Avezdjanov for the annual Justice for Free Expression conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016.
The Jakarta Recommendations are the outcome of discussions at a regional consultation on “Expression, Opinion and Religious Freedoms in Asia”, held in Jakarta, Indonesia on…
The International Press Institute’s (IPI) work on legal reform is now being hosted by the Media Laws Database. IPI is a global network of publishers, editors,…
Defamation Act 1952 Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269. Banco de Portugal v Waterlow [1932] AC 452 at 506 Clarke v Bain [2008] EWHC…
IFEX-SPP: Paraguay UPR, Third Cycle Executive Summary: The following is a joint report submitted by the IFEX-SPP Coalition. The objective of the report is to…
This report was originally published by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. Summary Kashmir’s Internet Siege provides…
“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.”
A presentation prepared by Agnes Callamard for the annual Justice for Free Expression conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016.
On June 16, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered judgement on Delfi AS v. Estonia. Delfi AS, one of Estonia’s largest online news…