Het meningloze tijdperk external link

Abstract

Bijdrage over de vrijheid van meningsuiting in het populistische tijdperk.

Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Other{nokey, title = {Het meningloze tijdperk}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1737.pdf}, year = {0301}, date = {2016-03-01}, abstract = {Bijdrage over de vrijheid van meningsuiting in het populistische tijdperk.}, keywords = {Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright) external link

AMI, num: 6, pp: 169-173., 2016

Abstract

Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1735.pdf}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, abstract = {Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection external link

Nomos, 0225

Abstract

The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news. This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/irion_a-special-regard_chapterfinal/}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, abstract = {The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news. This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

Annotatie bij EHRM 20 oktober 2015 (Pentikäinen / Finland) external link

European Human Rights Cases, num: 3, 2016

Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 20 oktober 2015 (Pentikäinen / Finland)}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1730.pdf}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, number = {3}, keywords = {Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }

IE vincit omnia? Opsporing in de particuliere sector. external link

AMI, num: 6, pp: 176-180., 2016

Abstract

Bevel aan Google tot afgifte ex. art. 28 lid 9 Aw van persoons- en adresgegevens van de houder van een Google Play account vanwege onrechtmatige verkoop van e-books. Voorwaarde dat de houder op grond van art. 40 Wbp verzet kan aantekenen tegen die afgifte bij de verantwoordelijke (Google). Grondrechtenconflict bescherming van eigendom, vrijheid van meningsuiting en privacy.

Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Other{nokey, title = {IE vincit omnia? Opsporing in de particuliere sector.}, author = {Kabel, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1724.pdf}, year = {0216}, date = {2016-02-16}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, abstract = {Bevel aan Google tot afgifte ex. art. 28 lid 9 Aw van persoons- en adresgegevens van de houder van een Google Play account vanwege onrechtmatige verkoop van e-books. Voorwaarde dat de houder op grond van art. 40 Wbp verzet kan aantekenen tegen die afgifte bij de verantwoordelijke (Google). Grondrechtenconflict bescherming van eigendom, vrijheid van meningsuiting en privacy.}, keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

Welcome to the Jungle: the Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Privacy Violations in Europe external link

JIPITEC, num: 3, pp: 211-228., 2016

Abstract

In Europe, roughly three regimes apply to the liability of Internet intermediaries for privacy violations conducted by users through their network. These are: the e-Commerce Directive, which, under certain conditions, excludes them from liability; the Data Protection Directive, which imposes a number of duties and responsibilities on providers processing personal data; and the freedom of expression, contained inter alia in the ECHR, which, under certain conditions, grants Internet providers several privileges and freedoms. Each doctrine has its own field of application, but they also have partial overlap. In practice, this creates legal inequality and uncertainty, especially with regard to providers that host online platforms and process User Generated Content.

Data protection, ECHR, Freedom of expression, Grondrechten, intermediaries, liability, Privacy

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Welcome to the Jungle: the Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Privacy Violations in Europe}, author = {van der Sloot, B.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1720.pdf}, year = {0119}, date = {2016-01-19}, journal = {JIPITEC}, number = {3}, abstract = {In Europe, roughly three regimes apply to the liability of Internet intermediaries for privacy violations conducted by users through their network. These are: the e-Commerce Directive, which, under certain conditions, excludes them from liability; the Data Protection Directive, which imposes a number of duties and responsibilities on providers processing personal data; and the freedom of expression, contained inter alia in the ECHR, which, under certain conditions, grants Internet providers several privileges and freedoms. Each doctrine has its own field of application, but they also have partial overlap. In practice, this creates legal inequality and uncertainty, especially with regard to providers that host online platforms and process User Generated Content.}, keywords = {Data protection, ECHR, Freedom of expression, Grondrechten, intermediaries, liability, Privacy}, }