Sentences with phrase «decision on data protection»

Not exact matches

The decision is part of the planned legislation for harmonising Irish law with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force on 25 May.

Taylor Wessing has been ordered to disclose information it held about parties involved in litigation, in a landmark Court of Appeal decision on legal professional privilege under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998).

In addition, it agreed with the EP's argument that the decision also had to be based on Article 16 TFEU, guaranteeing the right to data protection, because the agreement has two aims: ensuring public security through the transfer of PNR data and protecting PNR data when transferred.

Both national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and the Commission were given the power to assess the level of protection surrounding a given set of cross-border transfers: the former when examining specific requests from data holders, the later through «Adequacy Decisions», binding on Member StaData Protection Authorities (DPAs) and the Commission were given the power to assess the level of protection surrounding a given set of cross-border transfers: the former when examining specific requests from data holders, the later through «Adequacy Decisions», binding on MembProtection Authorities (DPAs) and the Commission were given the power to assess the level of protection surrounding a given set of cross-border transfers: the former when examining specific requests from data holders, the later through «Adequacy Decisions», binding on Membprotection surrounding a given set of cross-border transfers: the former when examining specific requests from data holders, the later through «Adequacy Decisions», binding on Member Stadata holders, the later through «Adequacy Decisions», binding on Member States.

Fanny's post takes us through the context of the decision and its content, focusing in particular on the role of national data protection authorities and the competences of the respective actors, i.e. the Commission, national authorities and the courts.

On the other, the EU was already busy tackling other urgent and delicate data protection issues, such as the adoption of the new General Data Protection Regulation, repealing Directive 95 / 46 / EC, and the Data Protection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement cooperatdata protection issues, such as the adoption of the new General Data Protection Regulation, repealing Directive 95 / 46 / EC, and the Data Protection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement coprotection issues, such as the adoption of the new General Data Protection Regulation, repealing Directive 95 / 46 / EC, and the Data Protection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement cooperatData Protection Regulation, repealing Directive 95 / 46 / EC, and the Data Protection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement coProtection Regulation, repealing Directive 95 / 46 / EC, and the Data Protection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement cooperatData Protection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement coProtection Directive with respect to the processing of personal data for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement cooperatdata for criminal investigations, repealing Council Framework Decision 2008 / 977 / JHA, and the negotiations and adoption of the new Umbrella Agreement with regard to EU - US law enforcement cooperation.

He also challenged the Council's decision to publish 3 separate reports into the allegations against him (collectively «the Reports»), on the grounds that publication breached his rights under Art. 8 (1) ECHR and as a data subject under the Data Protection Act 1998 («DPA 1998&raqudata subject under the Data Protection Act 1998 («DPA 1998&raquData Protection Act 1998 («DPA 1998»).

On the face of it, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dawson - Damer & Ors v Taylor Wessing LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 4 concerned the narrow issue of the circumstances in which the court may decline to exercise its discretion to order that a person must comply with a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

Whilst the Court of Justice alone has jurisdiction to declare an EU act invalid, where a claim is lodged with the national supervisory authorities they may, even where the Commission has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of protection of personal data, examine whether the transfer of a person's data to the third country complies with the requirements of the EU legislation on the protection of that data and, in the same way as the person concerned, bring the matter before the national courts, in order that the national courts make a reference for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of examination of that decision's validity

It goes on to conclude that US law fails to limit interference with EU fundamental rights (para. 88), and that Decision 2002/520 contains gaps in protection with regard to data transferred under the Safe Harbor (para. 89).

Last week, EDRM hosted a webinar on «Practical Options for US Litigators and Investigators Dealing with EU Data» featuring Dominic Jaar, KPMG, and Jo Sherman, EDT, regarding the October 2015 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland.

The latter has now ruled that European data protection authorities can not rely on the umbrella of Safe Harbor to govern their decisions.

Having a provision on automated decisions is not a new right, having been brought over from the 1995 data protection directive.

In his Tweet, Nordea's Beslik said part of the decision on Facebook was linked to the «overhanging threat of increasing regulation of the platforms» and the European Union's new data protection rules.