The Weltimmo judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 1 October 2015 has potentially far-reaching implications in practice as it addresses a question frequently faced by multinationals operating across multiple EU jurisdictions, namely which one of the various national data protection laws they must comply with.
Any company or organisation that finds itself as the 'middle man' in contacts between competitors or which has dealings with such a middleman must take care, as a flurry of recent EU cases has demonstrated. Any company that directly facilitates those contacts is in very dangerous waters indeed.
In a recent decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) determines how the term "establishment" used in the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC must be interpreted and thereby on the applicability of national data protection law in cases with a cross-border context as well as on the power of national data protection authorities in this regard. This has practical implications.
With the steady increase of global regulation and enforcement across all industries in today's commercial world, the conduct by companies of independent and credible internal investigations is swiftly being recognised as a standalone area of expertise
With a long-awaited decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) causes headache and turbulences to manufacturers, importers and distributors of all kinds of products to be placed on the market in the European Union.
On 21 October, the European Commission issued the first two tax rulings State aid decisions finding the two rulings to violate EU...
The EU Commission may fine companies merely for helping other undertakings run a cartel, the European Court of Justice held on 22 October 2015 - but under which conditions?
Adoption Day sees EU adopt legislative framework to lift nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions
On 18 October 2015, Iran's Foreign Minister and the EU Foreign Policy Chief issued a joint statement announcing the official adoption of the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" between Iran and the EU/E3+3 (China, the EU, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the USA).
The Court of Justice of the European Union, following the opinion of the Advocate General, invalidated European Commission Decision 2000/520 dated July 27, 2000, which allowed transfers of personal data to US companies that self-certified under the US/EU Safe Harbor Program.
The first Post Danmark case in 2012 brought about a modest antitrust revolution on Article 102 applicable to discrimination. Rarefied economic concepts were confirmed. Price discrimination as a standalone abuse was all but confined to a historical footnote in antitrust textbooks, to be replaced by a predation type test.