Cases Flashcards
C-807/18 and C-39/19 Telenor Magyarország
Week 1
Summary: No access to other internet pages, zero tariff given preferences when limit of data is reached = breach of 3(2)&(3) Net Neutrality Regulation
COME BACK TO THIS
C-854/19 Vodafone
Come back to this
LICRA et UEJF v Yahoo! Inc and Yahoo! France
Cross border speech
Article R645-1 of the French Criminal Code
What
Yahoo! France saw a large influx of nazi memorabilia on their “auction” page.
Issue
French student association was offended and asked Yahoo! to change their regulations
Court
French court demanded Yahoo! to do so but the US court made a decision against them because FR does not have jurisdiction over American based companies.
Conclusion
Yahoo voluntarily followed what France was asking
Cross Border Speech
Google Spain v AEPD & Mario Costeja González
Right to be forgotten
What
Mario once went bankrupt and bc he wants to start a new business he didn’t want the info out there about him
Solution
Court of Justice, said he has the right to be forgotten and his info should be released from Google
Conclusion
Information was delisted (source exists but not the first search result)
Right to be forgotten
C-507/17 Google v CNIL
Right to be forgotten
What
* Can these links be available outside of the European Union
* Not all links requested to be deleted were delisted, only the ones in the countries requested eg. request is from germany, will only be done in germany
Conclusion
Court said that there is no global right to be forgotten because it would limit our freedom of information. It is only applicable within the EU
C-18/18 Eva Glawischnig - Piesczek v Facebook
Right to be forgotten
What
Austrian politician experienced defamatory posts and her legal team went to the court and claimed defamation
Court
Declared FB posts as defamatory and asked FB for a global deletion of the posts, they said it was correct to do so
Conclusion
All were globally taken down
Important! she went through article 15 and stated the platform dividers and informed them of ‘illegal content’
By flagging something as illegal then it has to be taken down! But you must go through the court and file a claim!
Regulation 2024/900
- Transparency and targeting of political advertising
- Political advertisements must be made available with a transparent label and notice
- Including info about: sponsor, amounts paid, techniques etc.
- Targeting is only permitted under strict conditions
- Data has to be collected from data subject
- Can only be used if subject has given explicit and separate consent
- “Special categories” cannot be used i.e. race
- Ban on provision 3 months before election or referendum to prevent foreign interference
von Hannover v Germany No.1
Gossip and Privacy
What
Paps took pictures of her at a “date” with someone else, she went to german court and they did nothing
ECtHR
There needs to be a balance between private and public interest making it that germany violated her life
Conclusion
Germany did nothing and the media ended up taking more pictures of her private life during the time in which her father was sick and dying
von Hannover v Germany No.2
MOST IMPORTANT!!
Gossip and Privacy
What
How can there be a balance between private life and freedom of press
Court
Distinction between individuals acting in private vs public interest & the context and circumstance needs to be considered
Solution
Because the king was in poor health, it was of public interest to know his condition. Therefore, article 8 was overridden by article 10
Factors to assess
1. Contribute to a debate in the public interest?
2. How well known is the person? what is the subject?
3. What is the prior conduct of the person concerned? How have they acted? How have they frequently consented to their photo being taken? (111)
4. Content, form and consequence ; is it an online blog (eg), is it favorable to the individual (eg), what are the consequences? (112)
5. What are the circumstances in which the photos were captured? (113)
6. Are they a public figure par excellence? Or are they a slightly well known person?
Paul Chambers Case (UK)
Criminal Threats and Organizing Criminal Activity
What
He wanted to meet his gf but the airport was closed bc of snow so he went to social media and posted that he wanted to “blow the airport up” if it didn’t open
Director of airport saw this and he was sentenced to 5 years in and out
High Court
Put off charges because he lacked mens rea
Facebook Riots Case (UK)
Criminal Threats and Organizing Criminal Activity
What
2 men writing posts on Facebook to advertise riots with time and place but it didn’t occur because neither had friends
Court
Actus reus and Mens rea were both fulfilled → both given 4 years.
Matthew Woods Case (UK Court)
Cyberbullying
What:
comments were made about April and Madeleine McCann including sexually explicit statements
Court: Woods was arrested and he pleaded guilty → sentenced to 12 weeks
“The mental element is satisfied if the offender is proves to have intended that the message should be of a menacing character”
C-708/18 Asociatia de Proprietari bloc M5A - Scara A
Consent
What
Installing security cameras in the common areas of building, an inhabitant argued that he did not give consent, landlord complained about damages and excessive noise
Court
Because of the excessive noise and damages there was a legitimate aim
Solution
Lawful
C-101/01 Bodil Lindqvist
Article 2 GDPR ; What it excludes
What
One day one of the member on the website broke her leg due to an accident and the member was not happy about this so she went to the court against Bodil
Court
Bodil was in fault bc even though it was done with good intentions it still wasn’t ok
C-212/13 Rynes
Article 2 GDPR ; What it excludes
What
People passing by his house were throwing rocks at his window so he installed CCTV camera but it was also looking at the neighbors door, Rynes claimed he was only doing this to help his property
Court
Bc of the angle, there was no longer purely with regards to personal and household activities
Solution
Unlawful
