Back in July of this year, Anya blogged on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in   Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy And Satamedia Oy v Finland (App. No. 931/13), which concerned a balancing of Article 8 and 10 rights. The Article 8 rights involved data privacy and the Article 10 rights involved those of a media organisation publishing journalism. The balancing exercise gave rise to a number of interesting points, as Anya discussed (here), many of which will only increase in importance under the new Data Protection Regulation.

Those points are now all back up for grabs, as the case has been referred to the Grand Chamber. Panopticon will, of course, keep an eye out for the judgment in the case as and when it appears.

Christopher Knight

Those of you hoping that this post will announce the conclusion of the General Data Protection Regulation will be disappointed. That stocking remains to be filled. There are, however, various other relevant legislative updates from Brussels worth pointing readers in the direction of. Continue reading →

Although most readers of this blog will be familiar, to some extent, with the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“PECR”), they are a rarely sighted beast in the reported jurisprudence. Panopticon is aware of individual damages claims brought in the County Courts for small sums, but even they are few and far between.

The recent judgment of Nicholas Lavender QC, sitting as Deputy, in Lebara Mobile Ltd & others v Lycamobile UK Ltd & others [2015] EWHC 3318 (Ch) is accordingly worth a read for a glimpse into how PECR may have a part to play in major commercial disputes. Continue reading →

Those of you (all of you, surely?) who are keenly following the nail-biting, cheek-clenching progress of the Trilogue’s negotiations over the General Data Protection Regulation will be overjoyed to read this 370 page official EU document, dated 20 November 2015, summarising the original Commission proposal, the Parliament’s position, the approach of the Council and the “tentative” agreement reached thus far in Trilogue (or, where there is no tentative agreement, the suggestions of the Council’s Presidency).

There is limited purpose in analysing in detail all of the changes and proposals at this stage – enough ink has already been wasted on overtaken drafts – but what the tentative agreements do indicate is that a final text is getting closer. Will it beat Christmas? Who knows. Somehow, it is unlikely that Santa is keen on having to lug a new Regulation around to try and squeeze it into your stockings, but progress is progress.

Christopher Knight

Did we all make submissions to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information last week? It sounds as though many of you did. Lord Burns, Chair of the Commission, has announced that they received some 30,000 responses to their consultation. Not surprisingly, reading those and thinking about them is something the Commission does not now feel it can do before Christmas. Indeed, Lord Burns has announced he will call oral evidence from some respondents on 20 and 25 January 2016, and the Commission will write their report after that. Hopefully this is a sign that the Commission wants its work to be evidence-based. We wait to see who the lucky individuals are who have been invited to the oral evidence party.

The announcement is here.

Christopher Knight

Is a request for information made in a tweet a valid request within the meaning of sections 1 and 8 FOIA? Not in Ghafoor v Information Commissioner (EA/2015/0140). The FTT held that section 8(1) requires the request for information to be made using the “real name” of the person making it, and that the provision of an address for correspondence must one which is “suitable for correspondence” between the requestor and the public authority about the request. Continue reading →