Search for: "Fields v. Eu"
Results 241 - 260
of 761
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
Citations in the post are to that list and to paragraph numbers in the Communication.Index to Issues and AnnexPresumed illegalDue process at sourceLegal competence v practical competenceDue process v quality standardsManifest illegality v contextual informationIllegality on the face of the statute v prosecutorial discretionOffline v onlineMore is better, faster is bestLiability shield v removal toolNational laws v coherent EU… [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 2:30 am
"What the publishers sayLaddie, Prescott and Vitoria is an authority on all issues that are important to those practising in the field of copyright. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 3:18 am
In the latter, the EDPB shared a list of procedural aspects that should be harmonized at the EU level to better enforce the GDPR. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 4:30 am
Blogpost 36/2023 WS v Frontex, case T-600/21, decided by the General Court on the 6th of September 2023, concerns a number of Syrian nationals who arrived in 2016 on the Greek island of Milos with the intention of claiming asylum. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 7:03 am
A few days ago, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg. [read post]
16 Apr 2017, 7:41 am
- Industry professionals can be from the commercial or the not-for-profit sector, the sharing economy, or NGOs working in this field. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
On 1 February 2023, the General Court of the EU issued two judgments (T-568/21 and T-569/21 – Zoubier Harbaoui v EUIPO) on two trade mark oppositions filed by Google with the EUIPO against the trade mark applications for the signs "GOOGLE CAR" and "GC GOOGLE CAR". [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 5:11 am
* Ventsi Stoilov reports ...That the General Court of the EU ruled in Case T 638/15 Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. v EUIPO. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
Citations in the post are to that list and to paragraph numbers in the Communication.Index to Issues and AnnexPresumed illegalDue process at sourceLegal competence v practical competenceDue process v quality standardsManifest illegality v contextual informationIllegality on the face of the statute v prosecutorial discretionOffline v onlineMore is better, faster is bestLiability shield v removal toolNational laws v coherent EU… [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 1:53 pm
UruguayNicolás Souto Gancio v. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 5:26 am
Lost in this idiotic “Google v musicians” rhetoric has been the threat that both Art 11 and 13 represent to small entities. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 3:30 pm
What's more, for the conditions governing entitlement to compensation to be satisfied, there would have to be an infringement of the obligation to provide information to the right holder, as laid down in EU law, which was not proven here. [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 12:00 am
This technique was used, for example, by the ECtHR in X v. [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 9:49 am
; 7:21-cv-10179, Anderson v. [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 9:49 am
; 7:21-cv-10179, Anderson v. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 5:48 pm
This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field. [read post]
26 May 2016, 1:07 am
There is no assurance, come the inevitable human rights scrutiny, that courts applying ECHR Articles 8 and 10 or the EU Charter will draw a dividing line in the same place as domestic legislation.In fact the Bill creates different dividing lines between content and metadata for different purposes: one version for mandatory retention and acquisition of communications data from service providers and another for communications interception and equipment interference. [read post]
26 May 2016, 1:07 am
There is no assurance, come the inevitable human rights scrutiny, that courts applying ECHR Articles 8 and 10 or the EU Charter will draw a dividing line in the same place as domestic legislation.In fact the Bill creates different dividing lines between content and metadata for different purposes: one version for mandatory retention and acquisition of communications data from service providers and another for communications interception and equipment interference. [read post]
26 May 2016, 1:07 am
There is no assurance, come the inevitable human rights scrutiny, that courts applying ECHR Articles 8 and 10 or the EU Charter will draw a dividing line in the same place as domestic legislation.In fact the Bill creates different dividing lines between content and metadata for different purposes: one version for mandatory retention and acquisition of communications data from service providers and another for communications interception and equipment interference. [read post]
7 Nov 2020, 3:12 am
This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field. [read post]
