Latest news with #EuropeanConventiononHumanRights
The Journal
a day 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
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
TikTok granted permission to challenge €530m DPC fine
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 last April, 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 €530M fine, the April 30 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 April 30, 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. 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.
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to mount a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530m 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 last April, 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 €530m fine, the April 30 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 on Monday, 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 April 30, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made its 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. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but adds 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 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 the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits 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 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.
North Wales Live
3 days ago
- Politics
- North Wales Live
Woman's legal claim after ‘genocide' pillowcase protest in North Wales
A former Bangor University student is taking legal action following a dramatic protest she made at her graduation. Aishah AlBader claimed her right to freedom of expression was denied when she was dragged off stage for making a Palestine protest. The Kuwaiti national has taken the first step in civil proceedings against the Gwynedd university under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). She is alleging assault/battery, false imprisonment and violating freedom of expression. In a 20-page letter sent to Bangor University, Aishah claimed she was forcibly removed from the stage by security guards when she tried to peacefully protest. She refused to shake the Vice Chancellor's hand, handing him a leaflet about the university's investments, and walked across the stage with a pillowcase bearing the message ' Bangor University invests in Genocide'. Aishah said: 'As I walked up to graduate, I could only think of Gaza - of the students who will never get to graduate, whose lives, dreams, and hopes have been destroyed under Israel's ongoing genocide. Tens of thousands have been killed, entire families wiped out, and schools and universities reduced to rubble.' She undertook the protest as a gesture against Bangor University's investments in companies she claimed were 'complicit in human rights violations against Palestinians and the unlawful occupation of Palestine'. The university said it has an ethical approach to investments and is currently reviewing its policy. Aishah said she could not accept my degree 'in silence', adding: 'I knew I had to use that platform to centre those oppressed and dehumanised in Palestine. So, I held up a pillowcase reading 'Bangor University invests in genocide'. In response, I was dragged off stage, injured and humiliated." She continued: "I lost professional opportunities I had worked hard to earn and lived in fear and uncertainty of the future. My parents travelled thousands of miles to watch my graduation, and it should have been a moment of joy and pride. "I don't believe that holding a pillowcase should ever provoke violence and the pillowcase I held at my graduation revealed a truth that the university is desperate to hide. 'By bringing this case, I hope to affirm that no student should be punished for speaking out against injustices across the globe and in Palestine.' Aishah has hired London legal firm Gold Jennings to represent her. Her lawyers, Alexander Hogg and Jessica Harrison, said their client had intended to peacefully protest at the graduation ceremony. Her legal team said: 'Instead of facilitating Ms AlBader's non-disruptive and peaceful protest, around four university security officers forcibly dragged her from the stage before removing her from the building. She sustained physical injuries from the incident. 'Our client was part of the movement on Bangor University's campus to end the university's continued investments in companies on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions list. 'Her protest was intended to highlight the university's financial ties to firms complicit in what the International Court of Justice found in January 2024 is a plausible genocide in Gaza and the unlawful occupation of Palestine. 'Gold Jennings has been instructed by Ms AlBader to bring a civil claim for assault/battery, false imprisonment, and breach of her rights under Article 8 and 10 ECHR. As things stand, we have sent a letter of claim to Bangor University and are awaiting the university's response.' Alexander Hogg of Gold Jennings said: 'Safeguarding freedom of expression and the right to protest requires upholding them not only when it is convenient but when it is uncomfortable – such as during graduation ceremonies, when principled students draw much needed public attention to universities' unethical investments. 'Moreover, ensuring that universities are held to account when they violate students' right to protest and free speech, such as in the case of my client, not only protects the right to protest and speak out against what is happening in Palestine, it protects the right to protest and speak out on all issues of public importance for everyone. 'My client has taken a brave and first step in holding Bangor University accountable for preventing her from exercising her right to freedom of speech.' A Bangor University spokesperson said: 'We're aware of a claim. As this is an ongoing matter we are unable to comment.' Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Protest camps During the last academic year, protest groups staged encampments and occupations at universities across the UK, including Bangor and Cardiff. A Palestine protest camp was set up on university land outside the Pontio building in Bangor in May 2024. It lasted a year before the university issued an eviction notice in May this year, followed by a possession order in June. The 'notice to vacate' was handed to the protestors. But when the deadline to vacate passed without compliance, the university said it 'made the difficult decision' to seek a 'possession order' through the courts. This was granted on June 12. A Bangor University spokesperson said at the time: 'This legal action was a necessary step to bring an end to the ongoing disruption to university property and operations. Our priority remains towards ensuring a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for all members of our community.' A statement on the university's website, posted in May 2024 and still there, sets out the institution's 'ethical and sustainable' investments policy. It says: 'The university does not choose individual investments itself but has a framework that our investment managers use to create our portfolio. 'Our policy stipulates that we expect a high level of environmental, sustainability and governance (ESG) measures to be in place for any potential investment. The university also screens out potential investments in weapons, armaments, alcohol, gambling, tobacco, adult entertainment and fossil fuel companies. 'Bangor University is currently reviewing this investment policy, with initial discussions having already taken place at the investment committee of which the president of the Bangor University Students' Union is a member. 'The university expects that the policy review will be completed over the summer, and that the revised investment policy will be used as a framework by its investment managers to guide future decisions.' Action was also taken to end a Palestine protest camp at Cardiff University. Anyone picketing on Cardiff University property risks being jailed following a High Court injunction obtained in response to the now-disbanded Palestine camp outside the main building.
Civil.ge
5 days ago
- Politics
- Civil.ge
Prosecutors Revive Gavrilov's Night Probe Citing 2024 ECtHR Ruling
The area in front of the parliament building in Tbilisi was cordoned off on July 11 in what prosecutors say are 'investigative actions' over the 2019 'Gavrilov's Night' rally dispersal, a year after the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on the matter. In May 2024, ECtHR ruled that authorities failed to properly investigate the incident, violating the procedural limb of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture. The renewed scrutiny, however, comes as Georgian Dream authorities turn up the heat on Giorgi Gakharia, the leader of the opposition For Georgia party, who served as interior minister during the dispersal before his promotion as prime minister the same year. 'In light of the Strasbourg court ruling and recommendations, and to ensure an effective investigation with the involvement of victims, investigative actions are being carried out on Rustaveli Avenue,' the Prosecutor's Office said in a July 11 statement . Officers temporarily blocked the avenue for investigative activities, which the Prosecutor's office added aim to 'fully reconstruct the crime scene and identify alleged offenders.' The Prosecutor's Office also noted that Georgia 'was instructed to conduct specific investigative steps, including those involving victims, to determine whether the Interior Ministry's operation was properly planned and whether excessive force was used.' 240 people, including 80 police officers and over 30 journalists, including 's Guram Muradov, were injured during the June 20-21, 2019, violent dispersal of the rally that erupted in response to the controversial address of Russian MP Sergey Gavrilov from the Speaker's Chair of the Georgian Parliament during the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (IAO). Some have lost their eye. The dispersal, which took place during Gakharia's tenure as interior minister, was the first major case in which the ruling Georgian Dream party faced backlash for mass police abuse. Georgian prosecutors opened the probe in 2019, but the investigation has been protracted, facing criticism over failure or delays in granting those injured a victim status, and flawed efforts to identify and punish those responsible. 'Chorchana topic didn't fully work, so plan B has been initiated,' Kakha Kemoklidze, Gakharia's party colleague, wrote on Facebook in response to investigative actions. Kemoklidze referred to the recent criminal probe that Gakharia is facing regarding the 2019 tensions at the Chorchana checkpoint, adjacent to the occupation line with the Tskhinvali region. Although Georgian Dream endorsed Gakharia as Prime Minister in 2019 following the Gavrilov's Night dispersal and the Chorchana crisis, new and revived investigations have surfaced as former party colleagues increasingly revisit his legacy. The issues were raised within the Tsulukiani Commission, a body established by the Georgian Dream parliament to investigate alleged crimes committed by former officials. Among the questions posed to Gakhaira was whether he had authorized the use of rubber bullets, which resulted in people losing their eyes. Gakharia denied doing so in his first testimony , suggesting that police may have acted independently in self-defense. He added that once he became aware of the use of rubber bullets, he instructed that they be used only as a last resort to protect officers' lives. While for years Gakharia has owned up to the dispersal, the former prime minister recently hinted at the involvement of Georgian Dream founder Bidzina Ivanishvili. Speculations about Ivanishvili's role grew after video footage from June 20, 2019, showed Anzor Chubinidze, head of the State Protection Service and a close Ivanishvili ally, moving among riot police and appearing to oversee parts of the operation. Gakharia half-confirmed Chubinidze's involvement in his second, remote testimony to the Commission, as he was responding to questions on why diplomats, including the German ambassador, were not evacuated from Parliament during the unrest. 'Unfortunately, the then-leadership of the State Security Service did not recommend such action,' he said. 'Ambassadors are individuals under state protection. Instead of the head of the State Protection Service running around on the front lines and appearing in videos, it would have been better if he had ensured the ambassadors' safety.' Former Georgian judge at the ECtHR, Nona Tsotsoria, noted in a Facebook post that the 2024 ruling has been appealed and is pending before the court's Grand Chamber, which she said is not yet 'subject to implementation.' Tsotsoria thus questioned the Prosecutor's Office's sudden 'determination' to reopen the investigation after six years, suggesting the move is intended to 'exploit the ECtHR ruling for political purposes.' Georgian Dream has implied that the revived investigation may lead to Gakharia's accountability. 'We have heard more than once that he takes full responsibility for everything that happened and that he was the one giving orders,' GD MP Archil Gorduladze said . 'Now, he will have to assume full responsibility.' Gakharia currently stays abroad after leaving for Germany amid GD's intensified crackdown on opposition, including the jailings of six political leaders. Also Read:
