Print this page


IPPT20191001, CJEU, Planet49

The consent for the use of cookies is not validly constituted if the user must deselect a pre-checked checkbox to refuse his or her consent. The information that the service provider must give to a website user includes the duration of the operation of cookies and whether or not third parties may have access to those cookies.


IPPT20190924, CJEU, GC v Google

Prohibition of processing of personal data under Directive 95/46 applies to Google: subject to the exceptions provided for by the directive, Google has the obligation to comply with a request for de-referencing to web pages containing personal data. Google may refuse to accede to a request for de-referencing of personal data falling within the special categories when processing is covered by the exception in Article 8(2)(e) of the directive: the processing relates to data which are manifestly made public by the data subject or is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. Google must ascertain whether the inclusion of the link in the list of results is strictly necessary for protecting the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing that web page by means of such a search, protected by Article 11 of the Charter: on the basis of all the relevant factors of the particular case and taking into account the seriousness of the interference with the data subject’s fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, ascertain, having regard to the reasons of substantial public interest referred to in Article 8(4) of Directive 95/46 or Article 9(2)(g) of Regulation 2016/679 and in compliance with the conditions laid down in those provisions. Data relating to legal proceedings brought against an individual conviction are data relating to ‘offences’ and ‘criminal convictions’ within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46. Google is required to accede to a request for de-referencing relating to links to web pages displaying such information, where the information relates to an earlier stage of the legal proceedings in question and no longer corresponds to the current situation in so far as the data subject’s fundamental rights override the rights of potentially interested internet users.


IPPT20190924, CJEU, Google v CNIL

Google is not required to carry out worldwide de-referencing on all versions of its search engine – by a request or order for de-referencing: in a globalised world may access outside the Union likely have effects within the Union itself, numerous third States do not recognize the right to de-referencing, the right of the protection of personal data is not an absolute right and the balance between the right to privacy and the freedom of information is likely to vary significantly, the legislature has chosen to confer a scope on the protection that won’t enshrined beyond the territory of the Member States. Google is required to carry out de-referencing on all EU-versions: the de-referencing should be accompanied with measures that have the effect of preventing or, at the very least, seriously discouraging internet users in the Member States from gaining access to the links in question with a help from a non-EU-version using a search conducted on the basis of that data subject’s name.




IPPT20180125, CJEU, Schrems v Facebook

A private Facebook account user is a consumer within the meaning of Article 15 of Brussels I Regulation, even when his activities entail publishing books, lecturing, operating websites, fundraising and being assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement. Consumer cannot start a collective action at the forum actoris on the basis of Article 16(1) of Brussels I Regulation: an applicant who is not himself a party to the consumer contract in question cannot enjoy the benefit of the jurisdiction relating to consumer contracts.




IPPT20161221, CJEU, Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson

National legislation providing for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication in breach with Directive on privacy and electronic communications


IPPT20160920, ECHR, Van Beukering & Parool v The Netherlands

The publication of R.P.’s portrait was necessary in a democratic society. However, the ECHR considers that it was not unreasonable for the Court of Appeal to consider that reticence is appropriate when publishing a portrait of someone who is suspected of a serious crime.




IPPT20151006, CJEU, Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner

Existence of a decision adopted by the Commission that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State from examination. Decision of Commission that the USA ensures an adequate level of protection of transferred personal data (Safe Harbour) is invalid.


IPPT20150616, CJEU, Delfi v Estonia

Delfi’s liability for hateful comments posted by third parties no breach of Article 10 ECHR




IPPT20140513, CJEU, Google Spain v AEPD

Personal data: Processing personal data by operator of search engine in searchresults. The operator of this search engine is responsible for the processing: he determines the purposes and means of that activity. Processing of the personal data of a search engine is carried out in the context of activities of the establishment on the territory of the Member State, when the establishment was founded for the purpose of promotion and sale of advertising space offered by the search engine. The operator of a search engine is under certain conditions obliged to remove links to webpages published by third parties, even if the publication on those the webpages is lawful. Right to be forgotten, when processing by the search engine is currently incompatible with the Directive, unless special reasons resist against this.




IPPT20120419, CJEU, Bonnier Audio v ePhone
Internet service provider can be ordered to give personal information to copyright holder of alleged infringer


IPPT20120207, ECHR, Von Hannover v Germany

Characterisation of Prince Rainier’s illness as an event of contemporary society not unreasonable.


IPPT20120207, ECHR, Axel Springer v Germany

Balancing interest in publishing the information about arrest for cocaine possesion against TV actor's right to respect for his private life; under the circumstances no need to preserve anonymity TV actor; no bad faith publisher. Content, form and consequences of the impugned articles do constitute a ground for banning them.




IEPT20111124, CJEU, Scarlet v SABAM

Precluded injunction made against an ISP to install peer-to-peer filtering system: requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other. 


IPPT20111025, CJEU, eDate Advertising and MGN

Court of place in which publisher of online content is established or in which the centre of his interests is based has full jurisdiction in respect of all damages. Court of territory of which online content was accessible only has jurisdiction in respect of damage caused in that territory. Member States to ensure that provider of an elec-tronic commerce service is not subject to stricter requirements than in the state in which it is established


IPPT20110510, ECHR, Mosly v UK

No legally binding pre-notification requirement - respect for private life under article 8 ECHR: The limited scope under Article 10 for restric-tions on the freedom of the press to publish material which contributes to debate on matters of general public interest must be borne in mind. Thus, having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the sig-nificant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the absence of such a re-quirement in domestic law.




IPPT20100914, ECHR, Sanoma v The Netherlands

Protection journalistic sources: chilling effect:  The present case concerns an order for the compulsory surrender of journalistic material which contained information capable of identifying journalistic sources. This suffices for the Court to find that this order constitutes, in itself, an interference with the applicant company's freedom to receive and impart information under Article 10 § 1. Deficient quality of the law: not “prescribed by law”.


IPPT20100603, CJEU, Ladbrokes v Sporttotalisator
Exclusive license limiting freedom to provide services – for national court to determine. Blocking access to internet site for Dutch residents is an indispensible element. National court not required to determine compatability of implementing measure in each case. Prohibition on legitimate foreign operator from offering games of chance via the internet




IPPT20090507, ECJ, Rotterdam v Rijkeboer

Rules limiting the storage of information on the recipients of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed to a period of one year and correspondingly limiting access to that information, while basic data is stored for a much longer period, do not constitute a fair balance of the interest and obligation at issue.


IPPT20090331, ECHR, Sanoma v The Netherlands

No Journalistic privilege: handover of journalistic materials proportionate given the nature and seriousness of the crimes: ramming wall with a shovel: the actions of the police and the public prosecutors were characterised by a regrettable lack of moderation. Even so the reasons advanced for the interference complained of were “relevant” and “sufficient” and “proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued”.


IPPT20090310, ECHR, Times Newspapers v The United Kingdom

Internet Publication Rule: Requirement to publish qualification to an article contained in an Internet archive does not constitute a disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression.


IPPT20090115, ECHR, Reklos and Davourlis v Greece

Violation of right to respect for private life by picture taken in hospital: The key issue in the present case is not the nature, harmless or otherwise, of the applicants' son's representation on the offending photographs, but the fact that the photographer kept them without the applicants' consent. The baby's image was thus retained in the hands of the photographer in an identifiable form with the possibility of subsequent use against the wishes of the person concerned and/or his parents.




IPPT20081216, ECJ, Huber v Germany

Processing of personal data relating to foreign nationals: Permissible if it contains only the data which are necessary for the application of legislation and it enables that legislation to be more effectively applied. Not permissible is a system for processing personal data specific to foreign nationals for the purpose of fighting crime. 


IPPT20081216, ECJ, Veroporssi

Processing of personal data for journalistic purposes: If their object is the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium which is used to transmit them. They are not limited to media undertakings and may be undertaken for profit-making purposes. 


IPPT20080129, ECJ, Promusicae v Telefonica - KaZaa

Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48 and 2002/58 do not require the Member States to lay down an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings.




IPPT20071122, ECHR, Voskuil v The Netherlands

The right of journalists not to disclose their sources: The Court is struck by the lengths to which the Netherlands authorities were prepared to go to learn his or her identity. The Court finds that the facts to be considered tip the balance of competing interests in favour of the interest of democratic society in securing a free press. 


IPPT20070125, ECHR, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v Austria

Offend, shock or disturb: Freedom of expression is applicable to “information” or “ideas” that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Those who create, perform, distribute or exhibit works of art contribute to the exchange of ideas and opinions which is essential for a democratic society. Hence the obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression.Injunction disproportionate




IPPT20061130, ECHR, Veraart v The Netherlands

Freedom of speech: In these circumstances, and especially given the extremely serious accusations levelled against the K. family, there was nothing unreasonable in expecting Mr K at the very least to state his qualifications. 




IPPT20050602, ECJ, Mediakabel

A service comes within the concept of ‘television broadcasting’ if it consists of the initial transmission of television programmes intended for reception by an indeterminate number of potential television viewers, to whom the same images are transmitted simultaneously.


IPPT20050215, ECHR, Steel and Morris v UK

Denial of legal aid: inequality of arms. Large multinational  and defamation: It is true that large public companies inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts and, as in the case of the businessmen and women who manage them, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies. Breach of article 10 – lack of procedural fairness and equality:




IPPT20040727, ECHR, Sidabras v Lithuania

No breach of Article 10 ECHR: Inability to find employment because of the KGB Act not a restriction on ability to express views, because searched positions do not involve the imparting of ideas and information


IPPT20040624, ECHR, Von Hannover v Germany
Publication of photos: In the present case there is no doubt that the publi-cation by various German magazines of photos of the applicant in her daily life either on her own or with other people falls within the scope of her pri-vate life: There is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with oth-ers, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life”. Balancing protection of private life and freedom of expression: the decisive factor in balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest.




IPPT20031211, ECHR, Krone Verlag v Austria

Violation of Article 10 ECHR: Austrian courts overstepped their margin of appreciation. The injunction is too broad and impairs the essence of price comparison. Furthermore, the practical implementation of the injunction is highly difficult.


IEPT20031023, ECJ, RTL Television
Films made for television and -series


IPPT20031106, ECJ, Lindqvist

Processing of personal data: Loading personal data onto an internet page is not transfer of data to a third country


IPPT20030520, ECJ, Osterreichischer Rundfunk

Provided that the wide disclosure not merely of the amounts of the annual income but also of the names of the recipients of that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of proper management of public funds.




IPPT19980825 Court of Justice, Hertel v Switzerland
Violation of article 10: injunction not necessary in a democratic society: It will be seen from the foregoing that Mr Hertel played no part in the choice of the illustration for issue no. 19 of the Journal Franz Weber, that those statements that were definitely attributable to him were on the whole qualified and that there is nothing to suggest that they  had any substantial impact on the interests of the members of the MHEA.




IPPT19960327, ECHR, Goodwin v United Kingdom

Importance of source protection; chilling effect: Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding




IPPT19880524, ECHR, Müller and Others v Switzerland

Offend, shock or disturb: Freedom of expression is applicable to “information” or “ideas” that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Those who create, perform, distribute or exhibit works of art contribute to the exchange of ideas and opinions which is essential for a democratic society. Hence the obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression.