Case Law: Re Application by JR 38 for Judicial Review, Supreme Court sharply divided on whether Article 8 engaged for child suspected of committing crime in public – Alex Bailin QC

4 07 2015

RiotThe UK Supreme Court was divided 3-2 in the recent appeal of Re an application by JR 38 for Judicial Review ([2015] UKSC 42) on whether Article 8 ECHR was engaged for a child aged 14 who was suspected of involvement in criminal rioting. Read the rest of this entry »





Comment is (not) free: E-Commerce back in the limelight – Anya Proops

30 06 2015

e-commerceI recently wrote about the settlement of the Max Mosley litigation against Google (see my post here). Had that case been fought to its conclusion, we would at the very least have had the pleasure of gaining greater insight into the weird and wonderful world of the E-commerce legislation. However, sadly that was not to be. Read the rest of this entry »





On Delfi v Estonia… Is it time to adopt a good-Samaritan style exemption? – Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon

24 06 2015

consentThe Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently upheld the decision of the First section in the case Delfi v Estonia, which in 2013 found that holding a news portal liable for the third-party comments posted on its Internet news portal did not amount to a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Given that we asked in an earlier post whether a passive and neutral intermediary could also be a data controller, it is interesting to have a look at the Delfi case to better grasp what a passive and neutral intermediary is or could be. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Delfi AS v. Estonia, Grand Chamber confirms liability of online news portal for offensive comments posted by its readers – Dirk Voorhoof

19 06 2015

delfiOn 16 June 2015 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has delivered the long awaited final judgment in the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia, deciding on the liability of an online news portal for the offensive comments posted by its readers below one of its online news articles. Read the rest of this entry »





Daily Mail has attacked the Human Rights Act whilst also seeking to shelter behind it – Brian Cathcart

7 06 2015

Mail Human RightsThe Daily Mail has been reassuring its readers that the delay in the repeal of the Human Rights Act (HRA) will not be indefinite and is just a matter of getting the detail right. “This is going to happen,” it quoted a government source as saying. “We will deliver it – but we are not going to be rushed.” Read the rest of this entry »





What becomes of Misuse of Private Information, the orphaned child? – Paul Wragg

26 05 2015

ChildHugh Tomlinson’s excellent post came as a welcome reassurance that the Misuse of Private Information (“MOPI”) tort should survive the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”).  As he argues, MOPI is not dependent on its origins.  Yet MOPI is a child, with years of maturity still required, and one born of two parents (Articles 8 and 10 ECHR) with particular values, specifically that both are of equal status.  Once these parents are executed (for crimes they did not commit), MOPI can expect to be adopted by a very different set of parents, who are most unlikely to hold the same values.  Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Armellini v Austria, No violation of Article 10 in “football bribes” defamation case

12 05 2015

Casino_SW_BregenzIn the case of Armellini v Austria (Judgment of 16 April 2015) the First Section of the Court of Human Rights dismissed an Article 10 complaint by applicants who had been found guilty of defaming professional footballers by accusing them of taking bribes. The decision of the domestic court to convict the applicants of defamation was based on relevant and sufficient grounds and  properly balanced the Article 8 and Article 10 rights involved. Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,327 other followers