Tag: Information

Pari Pharma v EMA: ECFI 5 Feb 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Access To Documents – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra – Decision to grant a third party access to the documents – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – No general presumption of confidentiality

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:65, [2018] EUECJ T-235/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604732

PTC Therapeutics International v EMA: ECFI 5 Feb 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Access To Documents – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Document held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna – Decision to grant a third party access to the document – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – No general presumption of confidentiality

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:66, [2018] EUECJ T-718/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604735

POA v Commission: ECFI 8 Feb 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents concerning an application for the registration of a name under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 – Documents originating from the Commission – Documents originating from a Member State – Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Refusal to grant access – Obligation to state reasons – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings – Extent of review by the institution and the EU Courts of the Member State’s grounds for objection

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:75, [2018] EUECJ T-74/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604734

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Watson MP and Others: CA 30 Jan 2018

Consideration of case after reference to ECJ.Held: it is appropriate to grant declaratory relief, limited to the context of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the effect that DRIPA was inconsistent with EU law to the extent that it permitted access to retained data, where the objective pursued by that access was not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, or where access was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority.

Judges:

SirGeoffrey Vos Ch, Patten, Lloyd Jones LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 70

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reference – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .
Cited – Digital Rights Ireland v The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources etc ECJ 8-Apr-2014
ECJ Grand Chamber – Electronic communications – Directive 2006/24/EC – Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services – Retention of data generated or processed . .
At ECJ – Tele2 Sverige v Post-och telestyrelsen,
and Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 21-Dec-2016
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications – Processing of personal data – Confidentiality of electronic communications – Protection – Directive 2002/58/EC – Articles 5, 6 and 9 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, European

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604151

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2010

ICO On 12 October 2009 the complainant requested financial information relating to two named Council officers from the public authority, including information on their annual salaries, expense claims and annual leave. The public authority provided a proportion of the information and withheld the remainder under section 12(1) and section 40(2) of the Act. It also stated that part of the information was not held. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the response, and particularly with the level of detail provided regarding the expense claims. The Commissioner has investigated and upheld the public authority’s application of sections 12(1) and section 40(2); however, he also determined that it had failed to comply with its procedural obligations under sections 10(1), 17(1), 17(5) and 16(1). He requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50277947

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.531898

Sussex Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50712791: ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant requested information about prosecutions for knife crime. Sussex Police failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50712791

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602535

Sussex Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50712792: ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant requested statistical information about arrested persons who have been released whilst under investigation. Sussex Police failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50712792

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602536