LegalPost.eu

European Data Protection Board (EDPB) refused to grant full public access to draft versions of its statement on international agreements including transfers. The European   Ombudsman was not convinced by the reasons put forward by the EDPB to refuse access. The complainant asked the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for public access to draft versions of its statement on international agreements including data transfers. Following a separate Ombudsman inquiry, the EDPB identified additional documents as falling under the complainant's request, however it refused access to these documents. In doing so, it invoked an exception provided for in the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine the decision-making process. Based on an inspection of the documents, the Ombudsman was not convinced by the reasons put forward by the EDPB to refuse access, and proposed as a solution that the EDPB reassess the request and reconsider its decision to

According to the ECJ's Judgment (2.3.2023) in Case C-477/21 (MÁV-START), daily rest is additional to weekly rest even when it directly precedes the latter. This is also the case when national legislation grants workers a period of weekly rest greater than that required by EU law. A train driver employed by MÁV-START, the Hungarian national railway company, challenges before the Miskolc Regional Court the decision of his employer not to grant him a daily rest period of at least 11 consecutive hours (which the worker must be granted during each 24-hour period under the Working Time Directive) when that period precedes or follows a weekly rest period or a period of leave.  MÁV-START claims before the court that since the collective agreement applicable to the case grants a minimum weekly rest period (of at least 42 hours) that is well in excess of that required by the Directive (24 hours), its employee is not in any way disadvantaged by its decision. The Miskolc Regional Court asks th

In Chamber's judgment (23.3.2023) in the case of Udovychenko v. Ukraine (application no. 46396/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the consequences for an eyewitness to a road accident of telling a journalist that she had seen the son of B., a former member of parliament, getting out of the driver’s side of the car.  In the proceedings brought against her by B. and his son accusing her of making a false statement to the media, she was required to prove what she had said. In the absence of proof, the Ukrainian courts found that her statement had been untrue and had damaged the honour, dignity and reputation of B. and his son. She was ordered to retract her statement and to pay damages.  The Court found that for the applicant to prove what she believed she had seen with her own eyes, as required by the national courts, would have b