Category: Information

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government) FER0541832: ICO 2 Feb 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about discussions between the UK government and Ugandan government about Tullow Oil. The FCO provided the complainant with a digest of information contained within eight documents. Further information was withheld on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure on the basis of one of the following exceptions within the EIR: regulation 12(5)(a) (international relations); 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality); or 12(3) (personal data). The complainant argued that the public interest favoured disclosing the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged for the information identified in the annex attached to this notice and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. Regulation 12(3) is engaged but only in respect of certain information identified in the attached annex. Regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged for the information identified in the annex attached to this notice and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The exception to this finding is in relation to the following information which the Commissioner does not accept is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e): Document 2 – paragraph 5; Document 2 – paragraph 6 with the exception of the third and fourth sentence of that paragraph; Document 5 – paragraphs 5, 6, 9 and 10; Document 7 – paragraph 4. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information identified below: Document 2 – paragraph 5; Document 2 – paragraph 6 with the exception of the third and fourth sentence of that paragraph; Document 5 – paragraphs 5, 6, 9 and 10; Document 7 – paragraph 4. The information redacted from the headers of documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(3): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0541832

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.555088

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government) FER0540831: ICO 2 Feb 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about discussions between the UK government and Ugandan government about Tullow Oil. The FCO provided the complainant with a digest of information contained within three documents. Further information was withheld on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure on the basis of one of the following exceptions within the EIR: regulation 12(5)(a) (international relations); 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality); or 12(3) (personal data). The complainant argued that the public interest favoured disclosing the withheld information and also argued that as the information related to emissions, regulation 12(5)(a) could not apply by virtue of regulation 12(9). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information does not constitute information on emissions. Therefore regulation 12(9) is not applicable. Regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged for the information identified in the annex attached to this notice and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. Regulation 12(3) is engaged for the information identified in the attached annex. Regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged for the information identified in the annex attached to this notice and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The exceptions to this finding are in relation to the following information which the Commissioner does not accept is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e): Document 2 – paragraph 5; Document 3 – paragraphs 3 and 10. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information identified below: Document 2 – paragraph 5; Document 3 – paragraphs 3 and 10.
EIR 12(3): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0540831

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.555087

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the file listed as closed record MEPO 2/9138 held by The National Archives. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied sections 40 and 41(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554685

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.555228

Telford and Wrekin Council (Local Government (District Council)) FSFS567690: ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information from Telford and Wrekin Council (the council) regarding Disabilities Facilities Grants (DFGs). The council provided some of the information but found that the remaining information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to determine that no further information was held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FSFS567690

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.555255

Telford and Wrekin Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50551705: ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about complaints handling at Telford and Wrekin Council (the council). The council’s position is that it would exceed the appropriate limit of hour hours to determine if the outstanding information is held, and therefore section 12 applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 12 in this case. Therefore he does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.555254

Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd: ChD 9 Nov 2004

The claimant doctor had sought assistance from the defendant, and having been refused it had sought disclosure of its records about him. He had been refused access under the 1998 Act, and now sought access under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Held: Though his claim still was for wrongful processing under the 1998 Act, that claim had to be pursued under CPR, which in turn included an obligation to provide disclosure of documents. His failure under section 7 did not stop an application under the Rules. The schemes had different purposes, and different documents were protected.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-2004, [2004] EWHC 2509 (Ch), [2005] 1 WLR 750, [2005] FSR 28, [2005] 1 All ER 87

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules, Data Protection Act 1998 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 20-Feb-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc ChD 23-Feb-2005
The respondent declined to produce information held about the claimant saying that it was not held within a filing system so as to bring it within the Act.
Held: ‘the legislature has taken a policy decision not to bring unstructured files . .
See Also – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 3-Mar-2006
The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act.
Held: The information was contained in different formats, on . .
See Also – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimant asserted that the 1998 Act created rights between the parties that are in substance though not in form of a contractual nature; and rights to compensation for infringement of those primary rights of a nature that did not previously . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219863

Turco v Council (Law Governing The Institutions): ECFI 23 Nov 2004

ECJ Openness – Public access to Council documents – Partial refusal of access – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Exceptions.

Citations:

T-84/03, [2004] EUECJ T-84/03, [2004] ECR II-4061

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 12-May-2011
The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219829

Department for Communities and Local Government (Central Government): ICO 2 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (‘the authority’) about internal meetings relating to planning guidance for shale gas sites, correspondence relating to planning permission for shale gas sites, and information on meetings and correspondence involving oil and gas companies also relating to the latter issue. The authority said that the information was not held. There is an exception under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) when information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) applies in this case and he does not require the authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0554938

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.555076

Crown Prosecution Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 8 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to an enforcement case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 32(1)(c) (Court records etc) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps.
FOI 32: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50545164

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.555288

Valuation Office Agency (Local Government (Other)): ICO 3 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about ‘key properties’ that the Valuation Office Agency used to define the council tax banding of an area of Swanage approximately twenty five years ago. The Valuation Office Agency refuses to release the requested information, which it says is exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that Valuation Office Agency has correctly applied this exemption and he does not require it to take any further steps.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.555262

Thanet District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information from Thanet District Council (the Council) about a Contaminated Land Register. He specifically requested the information be provided in CD or DVD format. The Council provided some of the information in DVD/CD format whilst the remainder of the information was not provided in the requested format. The complainant was given options in relation to accessing the remainder of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided what information it can in CD/DVD format and was correct to refuse to provide the remainder of the information in CD/DVD format. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0087 dismissed.
EIR 6(1)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0554468

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555256

Staffordshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 7 Apr 2015

The complainant requested information about property owned, or previously owned, by Staffordshire Police. Staffordshire Police refused the requests on the grounds that they were vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s requests were vexatious meaning that section 14(1) provided that Staffordshire Police was not obliged to comply with them. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0099 dismissed – majority upheld DN.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557546

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555358

Treasury Solicitors (Central Government): ICO 9 Mar 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol) for guidance it provided to other government departments in the event of freedom of information cases being appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office or progressed beyond that stage. TSol explained that it held information falling within the scope of the request but refused to provide it on the basis of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 31(1)(c) (administration of justice) of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that only parts of the withheld information are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(c), albeit that for such information the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner has also decided that the remaining information contained in the document is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with a redacted copy of the document ‘FOI Litigation: A Strategy’. The only redactions which can be made are to the parts of the document which the Commissioner accepts are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(c) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0081 dismissed.
FOI 31: Partly upheld FOI 42: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554893

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555259

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government): ICO 29 Apr 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information in relation to two tax avoidance arrangements known as ‘Pendulum’ and ‘Alphabeta’ vehicles. The Commissioner found that the public authority was not entitled to withhold all of the information within the scope of the request in reliance on the exemption at section 31(1)(d) FOIA. The public authority was entitled to withhold some of the information in scope in reliance on the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner therefore ordered the public authority to disclose the information he found the public authority was not entitled to withhold in reliance on either exemptions.
FOI 31: Upheld FOI 44: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565267

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555311

Office of The First Minister and Deputy First Minister (Central Government): ICO 22 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the Central Good Relations Funding Programme administered by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). OFMDFM has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that OFMDFM has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to firstly, confirm or deny that the requested information is held (or, if the public authority decides to refuse to confirm or deny that any of the requested information is held, a refusal notice should be issued that complies with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA). Secondly, and subject to the above, if the information is held the public authority must either disclose the requested information or, if it wishes to withhold any information, issue a refusal notice in relation to the information it wishes to withhold and disclose the remainder.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50573317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555350

University of Reading (Education (University)): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the funding the university has received from the sugar industry since 2010. The university disclosed some information but refused to disclose the amount it had received from Mars over this period citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the amount of funding it has received from Mars since 2010 under section 43 of the FOIA. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50547768

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555261

West Midlands Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 30 Apr 2015

The complainant requested the names and contact details of the coordinators of neighbourhood watch and related schemes. West Midlands Police (WMP) refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP cited this exemption correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose this information.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50575488

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555361

Bedfordshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 26 May 2015

The complainant has requested information about a fatal road traffic accident. Bedfordshire Police (‘Beds Police’) refused to provide the information citing section 30(1)(a) and (b) (investigations and proceedings) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Beds Police was entitled to do so and he requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0128 dismissed.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50577249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555370

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 30 Mar 2015

The complainant submitted three requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) all of which sought to establish whether legal advice had been sought on particular aspects of the government nuclear weapons policy, and if advice was held, the title and author of the advice. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information – and thus not comply with the duty contained at section 1(1)(a) – on the basis of sections 35(3) and 42(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that although both exemptions are engaged, the public interest in maintaining each exemption does not outweigh the public interest in the MOD complying with the duty contained at section 1(1)(a) of FOIA in relation to each of the complainant’s three requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of each of the complainant’s three requests is held, and disclose or refuse to disclose any information identified in a manner which is compliant with FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 35: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555222

Stoke-On-Trent City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 18 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information relating to Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s (the Council) Framework Agreement for the provision of domiciliary care and carer support for younger adults and older people. The Council provided what it considered to be the extent of the information held. Some information was redacted under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it was third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council has not provided all of the relevant information it holds for item b) of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a new response to item b) of the complainant’s request which complies with section 1(1) of the Act, or issue a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552966

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555253

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 10 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested the minutes from the meeting that Tim Boyes had with Ministers in 2010 as specified in the following BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27476643 . The DfE refused to provide the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), section 36(2)(c) and section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50561399

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555077

Office of The First Minister and Deputy First Minister (Central Government): ICO 3 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested details of the salaries paid to special advisers working in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). OFMDFM refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that OFMDFM was entitled to withhold some of the requested information under section 40(2) but that some information ought to be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the current salary, as at the date of the request, paid to each special adviser working in OFMDFM and the point on the salary scale that each person was on when they were appointed to their role.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50548738

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555238

Monitor (Health (Other)): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Monitor is withholding the information, which it says is exempt from disclosure under section 21 (information accessible by other means), section 33 (audit functions), section 40 (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monitor has correctly applied section 21 and section 33 to the information it has withheld. He does not require Monitor to take any further actions.
FOI 21: Not upheld FOI 33: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50564555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555226

Department of Culture Arts and Leisure (Central Government): ICO 16 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure. PRONI confirmed that it held the requested information but, at the time of issuing this decision notice, had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the public authority decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test considerations.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50550409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555081

Department for Regional Development (Central Government): ICO 2 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information from the Department for Regional Development relating to weed control activity carried out by external contractors. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither the contractor nor the Department itself holds the requested information. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0549474

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555079

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 5 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested a file from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) which is referenced on The National Archives (‘TNA’) website. The MPS confirmed it holds the file but initially withheld it under section 22 (intended for future publication) of the FOIA. It subsequently disclosed some information but cited sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and, in the alternative, 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal data) to withhold the remaining information. During the Commissioner’s investigation it removed reliance on sections 24(1) and 31(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23(1). He does not require any steps.
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551093

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555069

St Giles Junior School (Education (School)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information from St Giles Junior School (‘the School’) in relation to a news report concerning a pupil who was left out of a reward trip for 100% attendance. The complainant wished to know who made the final decision to exclude the pupil from the trip and the number of academic staff that achieved 100% attendance for the year. The School advised that it did not hold information about who made the decision to exclude the pupil from the trip and applied section 40(2) of the FOIA in refusing to disclose the number of academic staff that achieved 100% attendance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has complied with the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50561414

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555252

South Tyneside Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant submitted a request to South Tyneside Council (the Council) seeking information about the legal action it had taken in relation to a particular blog which contained comments about three councillors and a Council official. The Council provided the complainant with some of the information he had requested but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege), section 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that all of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that by taking longer than 20 working days to reply to the request the Council breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555250

Gambling Commission (Central Government): ICO 12 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the location of National Lottery terminals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commission (the Commission) has incorrectly withheld the information relating to the names and addresses of the independent retailers operating as sole traders by virtue of section 40(2). He also finds that the Commission has not been able to demonstrate the prejudice claimed by section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
FOI 40: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50553684

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.555091

Rechnungshof v Osterreichischer Rundfunk and Others (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 20 May 2003

ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof

Judges:

Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-139/01, [2003] EUECJ C-139/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 95/46/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Rechnungshof v Osterreichischer Rundfunk and others ECJ 20-May-2003
ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213861

Osterreichischer Rundfunk and Others: ECJ 20 May 2003

ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-138/01, [2003] EUECJ C-138/01

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Google Spain Sl v Agencia Espanola De Proteccion De Datos (AEPD), Gonzalez ECJ 13-May-2014
Internet Search Engine – Name Removal
ECJ Grand Chamber – Personal data – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data – Directive 95/46/EC – Articles 2, 4, 12 and 14 – Material and territorial scope – Internet search engines . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213860