UNESCO Global Dialogue on Transparency of Internet Companies
On Monday, 3 May, UNESCO released a new issue brief on transparency and accountability in the digital age as part of its series titled World…
On Monday, 3 May, UNESCO released a new issue brief on transparency and accountability in the digital age as part of its series titled World…
“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.”
This report was originally published by Citizen Lab and is republished here with permission and thanks. In this post, we develop new Internet scanning techniques…
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.
To commemorate World Press Day (May 3), the European Audiovisual Observatory released the sixth version of the e-book: Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists,…
Trionfi B. and Salzenstein L., Climate and Environmental Journalism Under Fire: Threats to Free and Independent Coverage of Climate Change and Environmental Degradation, International Press…
The University of Groningen in the Netherlands is offering a 36-month postdoc position (full time, 1.0 FTE) within the project ‘Forensic Humor Analysis: Rethinking Offensive…
Voorhoof D. et al and McGonagle T. (Ed. Sup.), Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, IRIS…
Following is the introduction to Paul Schabas’ presentation prepared for the annual Justice for Free Expression Conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016. Download the…