Latest news with #DPC
Canada News.Net
a day ago
- Business
- Canada News.Net
High Court backs TikTok's legal bid against Ireland's data watchdog
DUBLIN, Ireland: TikTok has secured permission from the High Court to challenge a 530 million-euro fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), which the company claims is "penal" in nature and infringes on its legal rights. The fine, announced on April 30, 2025, stems from the alleged unlawful transfer of European users' data to China, via remote access from Chinese-based personnel to data stored in the U.S. and Singapore. In addition to the fine, the DPC ordered TikTok to suspend such data transfers unless it brought its operations into compliance with EU transparency regulations within six months. At a High Court hearing this week, Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted TikTok to proceed with a judicial review of the DPC's decision. She placed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the fine and related orders, pending the outcome of the review. TikTok Technology Limited (Ireland) and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited are bringing the legal challenge. TikTok Ireland, headquartered in Dublin, is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. The respondents in the case are the DPC, the State of Ireland, and the Attorney General. TikTok is seeking to have the DPC's decision quashed, arguing that the fine amounts to a criminal sanction and violates constitutional protections. The company further contends that the sections of the Data Protection Act relied upon by the DPC are invalid under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In documents filed with the court, TikTok acknowledges that both its Ireland and UK entities are "joint controllers" of European user data, but says that TikTok UK is ultimately responsible for paying the administrative fines — 485 million euros and 45 million euros respectively — which it argues are "criminal or penal" due to their nature and scale. TikTok also asserts that the fines breach Article 37.1 of the Irish Constitution, which governs the delegation of judicial powers. It argues that the fines and the limited right of appeal amount to an unjust and disproportionate interference with its constitutional rights to private property under Articles 40.3 and 43. The company further claims that the DPC's decision failed to provide the independent and impartial hearing required under the ECHR, asserting that such a significant penalty must meet higher procedural safeguards typically afforded in criminal cases. Justice Gearty approved TikTok's application to pursue the judicial review and adjourned the matter until October.
Malaysia Sun
a day ago
- Business
- Malaysia Sun
Ireland's data watchdog faces court fight over TikTok penalty
DUBLIN, Ireland: TikTok has secured permission from the High Court to challenge a 530 million-euro fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), which the company claims is "penal" in nature and infringes on its legal rights. The fine, announced on April 30, 2025, stems from the alleged unlawful transfer of European users' data to China, via remote access from Chinese-based personnel to data stored in the U.S. and Singapore. In addition to the fine, the DPC ordered TikTok to suspend such data transfers unless it brought its operations into compliance with EU transparency regulations within six months. At a High Court hearing this week, Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted TikTok to proceed with a judicial review of the DPC's decision. She placed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the fine and related orders, pending the outcome of the review. TikTok Technology Limited (Ireland) and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited are bringing the legal challenge. TikTok Ireland, headquartered in Dublin, is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. The respondents in the case are the DPC, the State of Ireland, and the Attorney General. TikTok is seeking to have the DPC's decision quashed, arguing that the fine amounts to a criminal sanction and violates constitutional protections. The company further contends that the sections of the Data Protection Act relied upon by the DPC are invalid under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In documents filed with the court, TikTok acknowledges that both its Ireland and UK entities are "joint controllers" of European user data, but says that TikTok UK is ultimately responsible for paying the administrative fines — 485 million euros and 45 million euros respectively — which it argues are "criminal or penal" due to their nature and scale. TikTok also asserts that the fines breach Article 37.1 of the Irish Constitution, which governs the delegation of judicial powers. It argues that the fines and the limited right of appeal amount to an unjust and disproportionate interference with its constitutional rights to private property under Articles 40.3 and 43. The company further claims that the DPC's decision failed to provide the independent and impartial hearing required under the ECHR, asserting that such a significant penalty must meet higher procedural safeguards typically afforded in criminal cases. Justice Gearty approved TikTok's application to pursue the judicial review and adjourned the matter until October.
Tahawul Tech
a day ago
- Business
- Tahawul Tech
TikTok's data storage practices face scrutiny
The Data Protection Commission (DPC) in the Republic of Ireland has opened an inquiry into TikTok over the storage of European users' data in China as a follow-up to concerns raised in April 2025. Its fresh inquiry focuses on the storage of data in China, which was not in the remit of the previous probe. The DPC issued a €530 million penalty against TikTok in May for violating EU privacy laws following a probe into the platform's transfer of European user data to China. TikTok is appealing the fine. The DPC explained the company told it in April about 'an issue that it had discovered in February 2025, namely that limited EEA [European Economic Area] user data had in fact been stored on servers in China, contrary to TikTok's evidence to the previous inquiry'. A representative for TikTok told Reuters the company 'promptly deleted this minimal about of data from the servers and informed the DPC'. Source: Mobile World Live Image Credit: TikTok
The Journal
3 days ago
- Business
- The Journal
TikTok given permission to challenge €530m fine over data transfers to China
SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the 'penal' €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site in May , for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530 million fine, the censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court today, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of 30 April 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court today on an ex-parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Advertisement In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are 'joint controllers' for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is 'the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision'. Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of 'administrative' fines of €485M and €45M 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim that the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution'. 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property,' TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
UPSC clears promotion of 18 Haryana officers to IAS
A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has recommended the promotion of 18 Haryana Civil Service (HCS) officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). In addition, nine more HCS officers have been granted 'provisional' promotion, including eight against whom a chargesheet has been filed in a Hisar court over alleged irregularities in the 2002 HCS recruitment process. The Haryana government had recently sent a proposal to the UPSC recommending the promotion of 27 officers from the 2002, 2003, and 2004 HCS batches. These were against vacancies spread across five IAS batches: three for 2020, four for 2021, eight for 2022, ten for 2023, and two for 2024. The long-pending promotions had been delayed due to ongoing legal proceedings. The process gained momentum following persistent follow-ups by senior officials in the Haryana government. In 2023, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a chargesheet in the Hisar court regarding the 2002 recruitment — a development that had stalled the career progression of many state officers. Explaining the 'provisional' tag, a senior official said: 'There was a view that the officers are fit for promotion, except for the fact that an FIR is pending against them and a chargesheet has been filed in court. In past cases, courts have quashed such chargesheets. If that happens here, their promotions will be treated as regular from the current date.' Another officer clarified that if the chargesheet is not quashed by December 31, the recommendation for promotion will lapse. 'In that case, a notification will not be issued for these eight officers. However, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is expected to soon issue the notification for the 18 officers whose promotions have been cleared,' the officer added. The chargesheet has remained a stumbling block for several years, repeatedly stalling the promotion process. In March this year, when the state government again approached the UPSC for promotions, it argued that the term 'chargesheet' should not be interpreted as the final report filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the UPSC returned the proposal after the Solicitor General of India disagreed with the state's position. 'All cases where a report under Section 173 CrPC has been filed must be treated as chargesheets under Regulation 5(5) of the IAS Regulations, 1955,' the Solicitor General had clarified. Just three days before the DPC met, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the vigilance chargesheet filed against one of the eight HCS officers, Jagdeep Dhanda. In his petition, Dhanda alleged that he was wrongly implicated in the case, and that the chargesheet — filed 18 years after the FIR was registered — was motivated by extraneous and mala fide considerations.
