Wednesday, 30 April 2014

Advisory Group Boost for ODR

Advisory Group Boost for ODR: "Those of us who thought that ODR was in danger of being overlooked in the course of the remorseless moves to strip expenditure in the justice system, whatever the true cost, can take some comfort from the latest move by the Civil Justice Council. It has at last showed a real interest in ODR.

The CJC is an advisory non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice and is responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system. The CJC has set up a new advisory group, chaired by... Richard Susskind, to explore the role that ODR can play in resolving civil disputes." 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

CJEU brings untargeted “just in case” data retention to its end - Peter Schaar

CJEU brings untargeted “just in case” data retention to its end | EAID: "The judgment of the CJEU dramatically changes the legal landscape: all of a sudden Germany is the only EU Member State with national legal rules that meet the European requirements, simply because the German rules do not allow for “just in case” data retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung).

 Hopefully, the EU institutions will draw the right conclusions from the message of the Court. The judgment points the way for other measures that would also lead to massive, suspicionless data retention “just in case”: the planned European Passenger Name Records (PNR)- and Entry-Exit Registers should be scrapped, as should the introduction of suspicionless mass data retention, envisaged in the German Grand Coalition Agreement." 'via Blog this'

European court allows website blocking | TechnoLlama

European court allows website blocking | TechnoLlama: "I have to admit that while I dislike greatly blocking orders, and I maintain that they are a complete waste of time and money, the decision reached by the CJEU in Telekabel is logical, and that it still leaves intact the balancing act that was reached in Sabam and Promusicae. It is particularly encouraging that the court restated that users must not suffer unduly, and that they should not have access to legitimate content curtailed.

 Incidentally, it is quite telling that the CJEU admits as part of the facts of the case the seemingly innocent fact that the website subject to the initial order stopped its operation in 2011, which serves to stress the practical futility of blocking injunctions.

The copyright industry may continue winning pyrrhic battles, but the war has been lost. The solution is not an injunction, it is a revamp of business models." 'via Blog this'

"A total map of everyday life" data retention decision: The good, the bad and the ugly

Matron: "A total map of everyday life" - Today’s data retention decision: The good, the bad and the ugly: "Commissioner Malmstroem, who currently still oversees that part of the Commission responsible for the Data Retention Directive, has already issued her own version of history. In an FAQ document released today, she specifically claims that:

 “National legislation needs to be amended only with regard to aspects that become contrary to EU law after a judgment by the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, a finding of invalidity of the Directive does not cancel the ability for Member States under the e-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC) to oblige retention of data.”**

 Put that in your pipe and smoke it, pesky privacy nerds!

So, onwards and upwards it is! No rest for the wicked and all that. At least the upcoming European Parliament elections and Commission rotation will hopefully give all of us a bit of a much-needed breather. " 'via Blog this'

CJEU prohibits mass surveillance

EU Law Analysis: The data retention judgment: The CJEU prohibits mass surveillance: "First and foremost, the data retention Directive is entirely invalid. The Court did not in any way rule that it could continue in force. So the immediate consequence is that we return to the status quo before 2005. This means that Member States have an option, not an obligation, to retain data pursuant to the e-privacy Directive (see further Chris Jones’ post on the background to the data retention Directive). However, Member States’ exercise of this option will still be subject to the requirements set out in this judgment, since their actions will fall within the scope of the Charter, given that the e-privacy Directive regulates the issue of interference with telecommunications" 'via Blog this'