• Syrian family sue EU border agency over removal from Greece

    Family who were sent to Turkey despite lodging asylum claims take case to European court

    Five years to the day after a family of Syrian refugees were bundled on to a plane and deported to Turkey despite having lodged asylum claims in Greece, they are taking their case to the European court of justice.

    In an unprecedented step, a Dutch firm of human rights lawyers announced on Wednesday that it had filed a lawsuit against Frontex, the EU border agency that operated the flight, and was seeking damages on behalf of the family.

    “Frontex has acknowledged there were human rights violations,” said Lisa-Marie Komp, one of the lawyers at the Prakken d’Oliveira practice representing the family. “It has accepted that the refugees never got the chance to have their asylum request processed.”

    She said it was crucial that the EU-funded agency was held accountable. “If it is to be given such a far-reaching mandate, then there should be effective possibilities to hold it to account. And if that is not possible, what it will amount to is the undermining of the basic principle of rule of law.”

    The action – the first of its kind to be brought before the Luxembourg tribunal – highlights the illegal practice of pushbacks at the EU’s external borders, according to campaigners who have stepped up calls for an end to the alleged abuses.

    Frontex has faced accusations of “actively destroying” the fundamental principles on which the EU was built by participating in the pushbacks.

    The body, which has 660 officers working alongside Greek counterparts at Greece’s sea, land and air borders, has admitted that the Syrian couple and their four children were among 18 passengers onboard the flight from Kos to the southern Turkish city of Adana on 20 October 2016.

    The family, whose members have not been named in the legal action for security reasons, say they were tricked by EU and Greek officials into believing they would be flown to Athens after initiating asylum requests in Greece.

    The refugees were transported to Kos after submitting their claims on the Greek island of Leros, among the five frontline Aegean outposts that were then receiving large numbers of Syrians fleeing civil war in rickety boats from the Turkish coast.

    “I never knew I was [going to be] deported to Turkey,” the then 33-year-old father told reporters after being placed in the Düziçi detention camp in the south of the country. “The policemen said ‘leave your dinner, get your stuff, we will take you to a police station for the night and [then] tomorrow morning to Athens.’”

    Once on the flight the family, including four children aged one to seven, were forced to sit apart next to escort guards, who were subsequently identified by the insignia on their uniforms. It was only when the youngest child began to cry uncontrollably that he was allowed to sit on his mother’s lap.

    “They were in a very vulnerable position,” said Komp. “The treatment of the children on the flight was itself in contravention of the rights of the child enshrined in article 24 of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU.”

    It took three years and eight months before Frontex responded to requests from the Dutch legal team and drafted a report about the internal complaint. “The bottom line is they didn’t take any measures to check whether it was legal to take this family out of Greece,” Komp said.

    The Syrians, from the Kurdish town of Kobani, have since settled in northern Iraq for fear of being returned to their war-torn homeland.

    An estimated 1 million Syrians arrived in Greece en route to other parts of Europe at the height of an influx that began in 2015. Although the Greek asylum service was overwhelmed, the leftwing Syriza party then in power in Athens said Syrian refugees would be given priority on islands that soon became synonymous with squalid and vastly overcrowded camps.

    The incident was the first recorded expulsion of asylum seekers after the EU reached a landmark deal with Turkey in March 2016 in which it was explicitly stated that people arriving in Greece would have access to a fair asylum procedure.

    Yiannis Mouzalas, who was the minister in charge of Greek migration policy at the time, told the Guardian he ordered an inquiry into the case after it became clear that “violations” had occurred.

    “An asylum request was lodged and it was evident the process had been violated and something illegal had happened,” said Mouzalas, conceding he had no idea of the inquiry’s findings because he stepped down before it was wrapped up. “But I do know it was the responsibility of the competent Greek authorities [to remove them], not Frontex which transported them.”

    Frontex has blamed the decision to return the family on “national authorities”, saying its role was to provide “means of transport, trained escorts, translators and medical personnel.”

    An 18-page report released 19 months later, which was subsequently published in the leftwing daily Syntakton, concluded that while the asylum claim had been registered 11 days earlier, it was only logged on the electronic police platform a day after the Syrians was deported.

    Although the right to asylum is enshrined in EU law, there have been mounting reports of dangerous pushbacks. Greece, Croatia and Romania were recently singled out for censure after an eight-month investigation led by the news organisation Lighthouse Reports found they had conducted a “violent campaign” to stop asylum seekers crossing their borders.

    The European Council on Refugees and Exiles, an alliance of 103 NGOs across 39 countries on the continent, has attributed “emerging evidence” of hundreds of illegal pushback operations to security forces in member states, often acting with the tacit support of Brussels.

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #justice #Frontex #frontières #poursuite #Cour_de_Justice_européenne #CJUE #Grèce #renvois #expulsions #réfugiés_syriens

    ping @isskein

  • #Frontex suspend ses #opérations en Hongrie

    Frontex, l’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE, a annoncé mercredi qu’elle suspendait ses opérations en Hongrie après une décision de la Cour de justice européenne critiquant le système d’asile de ce pays.

    Frontex, l’agence de surveillance des frontières de l’UE, a annoncé mercredi qu’elle suspendait ses opérations en Hongrie après une décision de la #Cour_de_justice_européenne critiquant le système d’asile de ce pays.

    « Frontex a suspendu toutes ses #activités_opérationnelles sur le terrain en Hongrie », a déclaré à l’AFP Chris Borowski, le porte-parole de Frontex, dont le siège est à Varsovie.

    « Nos efforts communs pour protéger les frontières extérieures de l’UE ne peuvent réussir que si nous veillons à ce que notre coopération et nos activités soient pleinement conformes aux lois de l’UE », a-t-il déclaré.

    En décembre, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a constaté de nombreuses failles dans les procédures d’asile de la Hongrie, notamment l’#expulsion_illégale de migrants en provenance de #Serbie.

    Elle a également déclaré que les lois interdisant aux demandeurs d’asile de demeurer en Hongrie pendant que leur appel devant la justice était examiné étaient illégales et a critiqué la #détention de migrants dans des « #zones_de_transit ».

    Le Comité Helsinki hongrois (HHC), un organisme de surveillance non gouvernemental, a affirmé mardi que la Hongrie avait expulsé plus de 4.400 migrants depuis la décision de la Cour de justice de l’UE.

    « La décision de Frontex est importante puisque Frontex n’a jamais suspendu ses activités » auparavant, a déclaré Andras Lederer, un membre du HHC.

    M. Lederer a estimé que Frontex avait été forcée de suspendre ses opérations en Hongrie parce qu’elle risquait d’être tenue pour « complice » de la politique migratoire hongroise.


    #suspension #Hongrie #arrêt #stop #justice #CJUE #illégalité #complicité
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #push-backs #refoulements #zones_frontalières

    ping @isskein @_kg_ @rhoumour @karine4

    • Frontex suspend ses activités en Hongrie, quelles conséquences pour la Serbie ?

      Le 27 janvier, l’agence européenne de gestion des frontières a suspendu ses activités en Hongrie, le temps que Budapest mette sa législation vis-à-vis des réfugiés en conformité avec le droit européen. Les associations serbes d’aide aux exilés s’inquiètent d’une décision potentiellement contreproductive.

      (Avec Radio Slobodna Evropa) – « La violence aux frontières et les retours illégaux de personnes en Serbie risquent de s’intensifier. » Voilà ce que craint Radoš Đurović, du Centre pour l’assistance aux demandeurs d’asile, une ONG basée à Belgrade, après la décision de Frontex, l’agence européenne de garde-frontières, de se retirer de Hongrie. Est-il possible, pourtant, d’envisager un scénario pire que la situation actuelle ? « On assiste tous les jours à des expulsions massives et à des scènes de violence », rappelle-t-il. « Les autorités hongroises ne prennent même pas la peine d’avertir leurs collègues serbes. Elles se contentent de pousser les réfugiés par centaines de l’autre côté de l’immense clôture de barbelés. »

      Frontex a suspendu ses activités en Hongrie le 27 janvier en attendant que le gouvernement de Viktor Orban harmonise la législation du pays avec l’arrêt rendu le 17 décembre par la Cour européenne de justice sur les demandes d’asile. Dès le lendemain, la Commission européenne a appelé Budapest à respecter les droits des réfugiés. « Je m’attends à ce que la Hongrie change sa politique et permette aux réfugiés de demander l’asile sur son territoire », a déclaré avec optimisme la commissaire aux Affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson. « Une agence comme Frontex ne peut pas aider la Hongrie à empêcher des gens d’entrer sur son territoire si la Hongrie elle-même ne respecte pas les droits fondamentaux des migrants et les lois de l’UE. »

      Autrement dit, pour Bruxelles, il serait grand temps que Budapest commence à accepter les demandes d’asile et permette aux réfugiés de rester en Hongrie au moins le temps que leurs demandes soient examinées, et qu’elle mette un terme aux expulsions massives sans laisser la possibilité aux candidats à l’exil de déposer une demande d’asile. Selon Vladimir Petronijević, de Grupa 484, une ONG belgradoise d’aide aux réfugiés, Frontex a émis de sérieuses objections vis-à-vis de cette pratique qui contrevient aux principes de l’UE. « Il a été souligné que la partie hongroise met en œuvre en permanence l’expulsion collective de migrants et de réfugiés vers la Serbie, une pratique qui prévaut depuis plusieurs années. » Or, regrette-t-il, avec ou sans Frontex, ces expulsions risquent bel et bien de se poursuivre. « Je ne vois pas de raisons particulières qui empêcheraient la Hongrie de continuer à faire ce qu’elle a toujours fait depuis 2015. »

      Selon le Comité Helsinki en Hongrie, Budapest aurait expulsé plus de 4000 réfugiés de Hongrie depuis décembre dernier. « Nous continuerons à défendre le peuple hongrois et les frontières du pays et de l’UE », a d’ailleurs affirmé, le 28 janvier, le porte-parole du gouvernement de Viktor Orbán. Du côté de Belgrade, les autorités continuent de pratiquer la politique de l’autruche. « D’après ce que nous observons sur le terrain, la Serbie réagit peu à ces pratiques unilatérales, non seulement le long de la frontière hongroise, mais aussi des frontières croate et roumaine, peut-être parce qu’elle ne veut pas offenser les pays voisins membres de l’UE », estime Radoš Đurović. La Hongrie n’est en effet pas la seule à mettre en œuvre ces mauvaises pratiques : la Croatie lui a depuis longtemps emboîté le pas, de même que la Roumanie ou encore la Macédoine du Nord.


  • Perché l’università delle piattaforme è la fine dell’università

    Un gruppo di docenti di alcune università italiane ha scritto una lettera aperta sulle conseguenze dell’uso di piattaforme digitali proprietarie nella didattica a distanza. Auspichiamo che si apra al più presto una discussione sul futuro dell’educazione e che gli investimenti di cui si discute in queste settimane vengano utilizzati per la creazione di un’infrastruttura digitale pubblica per scuole e università.

    Care colleghe e cari colleghi, care studentesse e cari studenti,

    come certamente sapete, le scuole e le università italiane, da quando è iniziata l’emergenza COVID, per ragioni inizialmente comprensibili, si sono affidate per la gestione della didattica a distanza (esami inclusi) a piattaforme e strumenti proprietari, appartenenti, perlopiù, alla galassia cosiddetta “GAFAM” (Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft e Amazon: https://gafam.info). Esistono poche eccezioni, come il Politecnico di Torino, che ha adottato soluzioni non-proprietarie (https://www.coronavirus.polito.it/didattica_online/supporto_tecnico_alla_didattica_online/linee_guida_e_vademecum_tecnici) e autoprodotte. Tuttavia, il 16 luglio 2020 la Corte di Giustizia Europea ha emanato una sentenza (https://www.garanteprivacy.it/documents/10160/0/FAQ+dell%27EDPB+sulla+sentenza+della+Corte+di+giustizia+dell%27Unione+europea+nella+causa+C-311_18.pdf/d2f928b2-ab57-ae7c-8f17-390664610d2c?version=3.0) molto importante, dove, in sintesi, si afferma che le imprese statunitensi non garantiscono la privacy degli utenti secondo il regolamento europeo sulla protezioni dei dati, conosciuto come #GDPR (#General_Data_Protection_Regulation: https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr). Dunque allo stato tutti i trasferimenti di dati da UE a Stati Uniti devono essere considerati non conformi alla direttiva europea e perciò illegittimi.

    Sul tema è in corso un dibattito a livello comunitario e il Garante Europeo ha esplicitamente invitato “istituzioni, uffici, agenzie e organi dell’Unione europea a evitare trasferimenti di dati personali verso gli Stati Uniti per nuove operazioni di trattamento o in caso di nuovi contratti con fornitori di servizi” (https://www.key4biz.it/il-garante-privacy-europeo-non-usare-i-cloud-provider-usa-conformarsi-alla-sentenza-schrems-ii/328472). Mentre il garante irlandese ha direttamente vietato (https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-privacy-data-us) i trasferimenti dei dati degli utenti Facebook verso gli Stati Uniti. Alcuni studi (http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/04/emergency-remote-teaching-a-study-of-copyright-and-data-p) infine sottolineano come la maggioranza della piattaforme commerciali usate durante la “didattica emergenziale” (in primis G-Suite: https://www.agendadigitale.eu/scuola-digitale/liberiamo-la-scuola-dai-servizi-cloud-usa-lettera-aperta-ai-presidi) pongano seri problemi legali e documentano una “sistematica violazione dei principi di trasparenza.”

    In questa difficile situazione, varie organizzazioni, tra cui (come diremo sotto) alcuni docenti universitari, stanno cercando di sensibilizzare scuole e università italiane ad adeguarsi alla sentenza, nell’interesse non solo di docenti e studenti, che hanno il diritto di studiare, insegnare e discutere senza essere sorvegliati (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/4/21241062/schools-cheating-proctorio-artificial-intelligence), profilati e schedati, ma delle istituzioni stesse. I rischi legati a una didattica appaltata a multinazionali che fanno dei nostri dati ciò che vogliono non sono, infatti, solo economici e culturali, ma anche legali: chiunque, in questa situazione, potrebbe sporgere reclamo al garante della privacy a danno dell’istituzione in cui ci troviamo a lavorare.

    La questione va però al di là del diritto alla privatezza nostra e dei nostri studenti. Nella rinnovata emergenza COVID sappiamo che vi sono enormi interessi economici (https://www.roars.it/online/dematerializzazioni-algoritmi-e-profitti) in ballo e che le piattaforme digitali, che in questi mesi hanno moltiplicato i loro fatturati (si veda lo studio (https://www.mbres.it/sites/default/files/resources/rs_WebSoft2020_presentazione.pdf) pubblicato a ottobre da Mediobanca), hanno la forza e il potere per plasmare il futuro dell’educazione in tutto il mondo. Un esempio è quello che sta accadendo nella scuola con il progetto nazionale “#Smart_Class” (https://www.istruzione.it/pon), finanziato con fondi UE dal Ministero dell’Istruzione. Si tratta di un pacchetto preconfezionato di “didattica integrata” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPPhUL8MIPs&feature=youtu.be

    ) dove i contenuti (di tutte le materie) li mette Pearson, il software Google e l’hardware è Acer-Chrome Book. (Per inciso, Pearson è il secondo editore al mondo (https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/Global502019.pdf), con un fatturato di oltre 4 miliardi e mezzo di euro nel 2018.) E per le scuole che aderiscono non è possibile acquistare altri prodotti…

    Infine, sebbene possa apparirci fantascienza, oltre a stabilizzare la teledidattica proprietaria (https://www.roars.it/online/teledidattica-proprietaria-e-privata-o-libera-e-pubblica) come “offerta”, si parla già (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/06/08/artificial-intelligence-in-education-transformation) di intelligenze artificiali che “affiancheranno” i docenti nel loro lavoro.

    Per tutte queste ragioni un gruppo di docenti di varie università italiane ha deciso di reagire.

    La loro e nostra iniziativa non è al momento finalizzata a presentare un reclamo immediato al garante, ma ad evitarlo, permettendo a docenti e studenti di creare spazi di discussione e indurre a rettificare scelte che coinvolgono la loro libertà d’insegnamento e il loro diritto allo studio. Solo se la risposta istituzionale sarà insufficiente o assente, ricorreremo, come extrema ratio, al reclamo al garante della privacy. In tal caso il primo passo sarà sfruttare la “falla” aperta dalla sentenza della corte UE per spingere il garante italiano a intervenire (invero lo aveva già fatto #Antonello_Soro (https://www.key4biz.it/soro-al-parlamento-infrastruttura-cloud-pubblica-non-piu-eludibile-per-lindipendenza-dai-poteri-privati/311412), ma è rimasto inascoltato). Lo scopo di queste azioni non è certamente quello di “bloccare” le piattaforme che erogano la didattica a distanza e chi le usa, ma spingere il governo a investire finalmente nella creazione di un’infrastruttura pubblica e basata su software libero (https://www.agendadigitale.eu/sicurezza/leuropa-post-privacy-shield-e-lopen-source-la-via-per-uscire-dal-colo) per la comunicazione scientifica e didattica. Esistono vari modelli (vedi quello proposto qui: https://infolet.it/files/2020/11/FACSIMILE-MODULO-DOCENTI-PRIVACY_pdf.pdf) ai quali ispirarsi, per esempio in Francia (http://apps.education.fr), ma anche in Spagna (https://cedec.intef.es/proyecto-edia), ecc. e la stessa UNESCO nel 2019 ha approvato una Raccomandazione (https://en.unesco.org/news/new-unesco-recommendation-will-promote-access-educational-resources-all) per l’uso di risorse e strumenti aperti in ambito educativo.

    Come dicevamo sopra, prima di arrivare al garante nazionale è necessario una tappa preliminare. Ciascuno deve scrivere al responsabile del trattamento dati richiedendo alcune informazioni (qui il fac-simile di modulo per docenti che abbiamo preparato: https://infolet.it/files/2020/11/FACSIMILE-MODULO-DOCENTI-PRIVACY_pdf.pdf). Se non si riceverà risposta entro trenta giorni, o se la risposta è considerata insoddisfacente, si potrà procedere col reclamo al garante nazionale. A quel punto, il discorso cambierà, perché il reclamo al garante potrà essere fatto non solo da singoli, ma da gruppi o associazioni. È importante sottolineare che, anche in questo evitabile scenario, la domanda al responsabile del trattamento dati non può essere assolutamente interpretata come una “protesta” contro il proprio ateneo, ma come un tentativo di renderlo, per tutti e tutte, un ambiente di lavoro e di studi migliore, adeguandosi alle norme europee.


    #université #enseignement_à_distance #gafa #vie_privée #protection_des_données #business #GAFAM #cour_de_justice_européenne #CJUE #enseignement #ESR #distanciel

    ping @etraces

    • Why basing universities on digital platforms will lead to their demise
      (All links removed. They can be found in the original post – English Translation by Desmond Schmidt)

      A group of professors from Italian universities have written an open letter on the consequences of using proprietary digital platforms in distance learning. They hope that a discussion on the future of education will begin as soon as possible and that the investments discussed in recent weeks will be used to create a public digital infrastructure for schools and universities.

      Dear colleagues and students,

      as you already know, since the COVID-19 emergency began, Italian schools and universities have relied on proprietary platforms and tools for distance learning (including exams), which are mostly produced by the “GAFAM” group of companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon). There are a few exceptions, such as the Politecnico di Torino, which has adopted instead its own custom-built solutions. However, on July 16, 2020 the European Court of Justice issued a very important ruling, which essentially says that US companies do not guarantee user privacy in accordance with the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As a result, all data transfers from the EU to the United States must be regarded as non-compliant with this regulation, and are therefore illegal.

      A debate on this issue is currently underway in the EU, and the European Authority has explicitly invited “institutions, offices, agencies and organizations of the European Union to avoid transfers of personal data to the United States for new procedures or when securing new contracts with service providers.” In fact the Irish Authority has explicitly banned the transfer of Facebook user data to the United States. Finally, some studies underline how the majority of commercial platforms used during the “educational emergency” (primarily G-Suite) pose serious legal problems and represent a “systematic violation of the principles of transparency.”

      In this difficult situation, various organizations, including (as stated below) some university professors, are trying to help Italian schools and universities comply with the ruling. They do so in the interests not only of the institutions themselves, but also of teachers and students, who have the right to study, teach and discuss without being surveilled, profiled and catalogued. The inherent risks in outsourcing teaching to multinational companies, who can do as they please with our data, are not only cultural or economic, but also legal: anyone, in this situation, could complain to the privacy authority to the detriment of the institution for which they are working.

      However, the question goes beyond our own right, or that of our students, to privacy. In the renewed COVID emergency we know that there are enormous economic interests at stake, and the digital platforms, which in recent months have increased their turnover (see the study published in October by Mediobanca), now have the power to shape the future of education around the world. An example is what is happening in Italian schools with the national “Smart Class” project, financed with EU funds by the Ministry of Education. This is a package of “integrated teaching” where Pearson contributes the content for all the subjects, Google provides the software, and the hardware is the Acer Chromebook. (Incidentally, Pearson is the second largest publisher in the world, with a turnover of more than 4.5 billion euros in 2018.) And for the schools that join, it is not possible to buy other products.

      Finally, although it may seem like science fiction, in addition to stabilizing proprietary distance learning as an “offer”, there is already talk of using artificial intelligence to “support” teachers in their work.

      For all these reasons, a group of professors from various Italian universities decided to take action. Our initiative is not currently aimed at presenting an immediate complaint to the data protection officer, but at avoiding it, by allowing teachers and students to create spaces for discussion and encourage them to make choices that combine their freedom of teaching with their right to study. Only if the institutional response is insufficient or absent, we will register, as a last resort, a complaint to the national privacy authority. In this case the first step will be to exploit the “flaw” opened by the EU court ruling to push the Italian privacy authority to intervene (indeed, the former President, Antonello Soro, had already done so, but received no response). The purpose of these actions is certainly not to “block” the platforms that provide distance learning and those who use them, but to push the government to finally invest in the creation of a public infrastructure based on free software for scientific communication and teaching (on the model of what is proposed here and
      which is already a reality for example in France, Spain and other European countries).

      As we said above, before appealing to the national authority, a preliminary stage is necessary. Everyone must write to the data protection officer (DPO) requesting some information (attached here is the facsimile of the form for teachers we have prepared). If no response is received within thirty days, or if the response is considered unsatisfactory, we can proceed with the complaint to the national authority. At that point, the conversation will change, because the complaint to the national authority can be made not only by individuals, but also by groups or associations. It is important to emphasize that, even in this avoidable scenario, the question to the data controller is not necessarily a “protest” against the institution, but an attempt to turn it into a better working and study environment for everyone, conforming to European standards.


  • EU court to rule on humanitarian visas

    Is an EU country obliged to grant humanitarian visas to people who are not yet on its territory?

    The answer to that question will be decided by the European Court of Justice after a Belgian body filed a case in an emergency procedure, it emerged this weekend.
    The foreigners’ claims council in Belgium has asked for an EU court ruling in the case of a Syrian family of four who filed a request for a three-month humanitarian visa in the Belgian embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

    #visa_humanitaire #cour_de_justice_européenne #arrêt #jurisprudence #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • Le port du #voile en entreprise divise jusqu’à la #Cour_de_justice_européenne

    La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne doit dire si une entreprise peut à bon droit interdire à une salariée musulmane de porter le voile. À deux mois d’intervalle, sur cette question hautement sensible, deux de ses avocats généraux viennent de rendre deux avis diamétralement opposés. En attendant la décision finale.

    #islam #religion #femmes

  • Droit à l’oubli : #Google met enfin un genou à terre

    Elise Gazengel myeurop

    Google se conforme à la décision de la Cour européenne de justice et accepte de se mettre en règle avec le droit à l’oubli. Les Européens pourront désormais demander au géant américain d’effacer leurs #données_personnelles en complétant un formulaire en ligne.

    #Union_européenne 1 - Google 0. Le moteur de recherche le plus utilisé du monde va devoir respecter le droit à l’oubli en Europe. lire la (...)

    #Société #INFO #Espagne #censure #Cour_De_Justice_Européenne #Droit_à_l'Oubli #internet #Mario_Costeja #vie_privée

  • #Mario_Costeja, l’Espagnol qui a fait céder #Google

    Elise Gazengel

    Google doit au plus vite respecter la législation européenne en matière de « droit à l’oubli ». Un Espagnol, Mario Costeja, a fait plier le géant américain en remportant devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) un procès historique obligeant Google à effacer les données privées.

    Tout a commencé il y a six ans. lire la suite

    #Société #INFO #Espagne #Union_européenne #censure #Cour_De_Justice_Européenne #données_personnelles #Droit_à_l'Oubli #internet #vie_privée

  • #Mario_Costeja, l’Espagnol qui a fait plier #Google

    Elise Gazengel

    Google doit au plus vite respecter la législation européenne en matière de « droit à l’oubli ». Un Espagnol, Mario Costeja, a fait plier le géant américain en remportant devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) un procès historique obligeant Google à effacer les données privées.

    Tout a commencé il y a six ans. lire la suite

    #Société #INFO #Espagne #Union_européenne #censure #Cour_De_Justice_Européenne #données_personnelles #Droit_à_l'Oubli #internet #vie_privée

  • La #Cour_de_justice_européenne va se prononcer sur la rétention de données par les fournisseurs de services de télécommunication

    Demain, mardi 8 avril à 9h30, la Cour du Justice européenne rendra un arrêt qui pourrait profondément modifier les législations sur la rétention de données par les fournisseurs de services de télécommunications. Petit rappel : « Les États membres doivent obliger les fournisseurs de services de télécommunication (comme les opérateurs de téléphonie ou les fournisseurs d’accès […]

    #A_la_Une #Rainbow_Hat #Société #Technos #Données_Personnelles #FAI #Privacy

  • Ayrault et le #TSCG : WTF ? | Yovan Menkevick

    Ils sont forts ces #socialistes, très forts. Leur premier ministre le formidable JMA vient de vendre le TSCG à l’assemblée nationale avec une belle conviction. C’était beau et émouvant à la fois. Mais que disaient-ils tous ces socialistes il y a moins d’un an, à propos de la règle d’or qu’ils jurent ne pas voter aujourd’hui avec le TSCG ? Remember… Ah ils en voulaient pas du TSCG, ça c’est certain. Mais parce que le TSCG d’aujourd’hui, ce n’est donc plus du tout une règle d’or, non, non, non. Il suffit de le lire pour s’en rendre compte. Petit passage savoureux : a) la situation budgétaire des administrations publiques d’une partie contractante est en équilibre ou en excédent ; b) la règle énoncée au point a) est considérée comme respectée si le solde structurel annuel des administrations publiques correspond à l’objectif à moyen terme spécifique à chaque pays, tel que défini dans le pacte de stabilité et de croissance révisé, avec une limite inférieure de déficit structurel de 0,5 % du produit intérieur brut aux prix du marché. Les parties contractantes veillent à assurer une convergence rapide vers leur objectif à moyen terme respectif. Le calendrier de cette convergence sera proposé par la Commission (...)

    #A_la_Une #Economie #Politique #Cour_de_justice_européenne #déficit_public #Dette #dettes_publiques #Europe #Henri_Sterdyniak #Jean-Marc_Ayrault #OFCE #règle_d'or