EU Commission opens consultations on media freedom and pluralism and audiovisual media regulator independence

On 22 March 2013 the European Commission launched  two public consultations, open until 14 June 2013.  The consultations formalise a debate started by recommendations made in January 2013 by an independent High Level Group (HLG) on Media Freedom and Pluralism convened by the Commission.

EU Publishes Report – “A free and pluralistic media to sustain European Democracy”

Neelie Kroes, with Prof Herta Daubler-Gmelin (left) and Prof Vaire Vike Freiberga

The EU High Level Group on Media Pluralism and Freedom has published a report “A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy”.   This makes recommendations for the respect, protection, support and  promotion of pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe.  It expresses concern over the “rejection out of hand” of the Leveson recommendations by “some politicians in high office”.

Case Law: F v G – Anonymity Orders and Extended Restricted Reporting Orders in the Employment Tribunals – Claire Darwin

The current President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Underhill J, in a judgment which contains a comprehensive review of the law on the use of Restricted Reporting Orders and Anonymity Orders in the Employment Tribunal (F v G (Practice and Procedure: Reporting Restriction order) UKEAT/0042/11/DA), has anticipated the arrival of the Extended Restricted Reporting Order. This is an order which derives from either EU Law or the European Convention of Human Rights. The scope of such an order is potentially far wider than an order under the statutory regime for anonymisation in the Employment Tribunal (found at rule 49 and 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure), or an Anonymity Order.

Case Law: Davison v Habeeb & Ors – the liability of blog platforms in defamation cases – Gervase de Wilde

A blog offers unprecedented scope for self-publication. But can the providers of blog platforms, whose business model is to make the process as easy as possible, be held liable for their contents in English law? This question was addressed in the case of Davison v Habeeb ([2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)) handed down on 25 November 2011 by HHJ Parkes QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court). The decision was made on an application by Google Inc. to set aside an earlier order in a defamation action in which it had been named as a party. This was due to its ownership and control of  popular blog publishing tool Blogger, which had been used to publish material about the claimant, Ms Andrea Davison.

Publish and be Sued: But Where? – Aidan O’Neill QC

If private information material has been published on the Internet where can the wronged individual bring an action, and what law applies? These are the questions posed of the CJEU by the German Federal Court of Justice (the Bundesgerichtshof) and by the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Paris) in two cases – respectively eDate Advertising GmbH v. X, C-509/09 and Martinez v. Mirror Group Newspapers Limited, C-161/10 – which were heard and decided on together by the Grand Chamber of the Luxembourg Court on 25 October 2010.

Case Law: eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez – Mark Vinall

Existing legal principles are not always easy to adapt to the world of the internet. In its recent judgment in Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez v MGN Ltd (25 October 2011), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union has laid down a radical new rule of jurisdiction over torts committed online, giving claimants the choice of suing in their home courts.

Libel, Science and GMOs: a French Criminal Case

Over the past year, the Libel Reform Campaign and Sense about Science have campaigned vigorously to “keep libel laws out of science“.   They have drawn attention to the “chilling effect” of libel actions on scientists like Peter Wilmshurst and science writers like Simon Singh.   An interesting perspective on these issues is provided by a French criminal libel judgment given by the 17th Chamber of the “Tribunal correctionnel de Paris” on 18 January 2011 in a criminal libel case brought on the complaint of one scientist against another over statements concerning research on genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”).

EU Law, Freedom of Information and Data Protection – Part 3 – Aidan O’Neill QC

This is the third part of a three part post.  In this part Aidan O’Neill considers EU secondary legislation on data protection

The Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC was passed by the EU legislature under what is now Article 16(2) TFEU. It has been supplemented by: the Data Protection (Telecommunications) Directive 97/66/EC which regulates the processing of personal data in the telecommunications sector; and by  Privacy (Electronic Communications) Directive 2002/58/EC  which prohibits, in principle, the storage of electronic data by persons other than users, without the consent of the users concerned.

EU Law, Freedom of Information and Data Protection – Part 2 – Aidan O’Neill QC

This is the second part of a three part post.  In this part Aidan O’Neill considers EU secondary legislation on access to documents.

The EU access to document regime applies only to the EU’s own institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.   Strictly it is not a freedom of information regime.  Instead as the General Court has stated:

“[T]he concept of a document must be distinguished from that of information. The public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions covers only documents and not information in the wider meaning of the word and does not imply a duty on the part of the institutions to reply to any request for information from an individual” (Case T‑264/04 WWF European Policy Programme v. Council [2007] ECR II-911 at paragraph 76)

EU Law, Freedom of Information and Data Protection – Part 1 – Aidan O’Neill QC

Freedom of information was not one of the “four freedoms” which formed the foundations of the European project.   The freedoms which a European common market   and customs union   were intended to herald were simply: the ability freely to ship goods for trade across national boundaries;   the freedom of workers to “up sticks” and go and take jobs abroad;   the freedom of individuals and companies to offer their economic services   and, if so minded, to establish their businesses abroad and the freedom to transfer money across European borders.