RTBF and global jurisdiction case now open for amicus letters. Do we want to draft one?

[Lorena Jaume-Palasí]

Dear all,

the French Data Protection Supervisor is bringing google to the highest Court of the European Union because they claim that deletion should be global (until now google simply deleted from EU domains and geo-blocked EU searches). The court is now opening a two months period where organizations can send amicus letters positioning themselves on this issue.

This case will certainly have a huge impact on speech regulation and access to information everywhere and will certainly not only rescind to the right to be forgotten.

So my question to you all: would you be interested in writing together an amicus letter? Anyone volunteering to join a drafting group?

Warm regards,

Lorena

[Gabrielle Guillemin]

Hi Lorena and all,

ARTICLE 19 and others intervened in this case at domestic level. Our understanding is that it is difficult to intervene before the CJEU if you were not a party to the proceedings at domestic level.

We will be looking to make fresh submissions before the CJEU once the notice of referral is published in the official journal. Our understanding is that there is a 2 months window from publication. Here is a link to our submission before the Conseil d'Etat: https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38567/Google-CNIL-Final-Submission.pdf

Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

G

---

From: "'Lorena Jaume-Palasí' via Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 September, 2017 16:17:49
Subject: RTBF and global jurisdiction case now open for amicus letters. Do we want to draft one?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publicness+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to publi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/publicness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/CAEPc%3DLbJM_pwiN_4uGfqn%3DpPXucO5%3DsaycimYM0ZoWwrBxGnLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael J. Oghia]

Hi Lorena & Gabrielle, all:

Last November, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) led a coalition of 29 media organizations in drafting a brief about the case, arguing that French authorities have no right to force their interests on Internet users in other countries, and allowing such worldwide restrictions in the interest of enforcing domestic law would lead many other countries to try to restrict Internet access.

You can see it here: https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/briefs-comments/google-v-cnil

I am not opposed to issuing a statement, but I think it will be good to coordinate with other organizations (such as RCFP and ARTICLE 19).

Best,

-Michael

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Gabrielle Guillemin <gabr...@article19.org> wrote:

Hi Lorena and all,

ARTICLE 19 and others intervened in this case at domestic level. Our understanding is that it is difficult to intervene before the CJEU if you were not a party to the proceedings at domestic level.

We will be looking to make fresh submissions before the CJEU once the notice of referral is published in the official journal. Our understanding is that there is a 2 months window from publication. Here is a link to our submission before the Conseil d'Etat: https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38567/Google-CNIL-Final-Submission.pdf

Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

G

---

From: "'Lorena Jaume-Palasí' via Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 September, 2017 16:17:49
Subject: RTBF and global jurisdiction case now open for amicus letters. Do we want to draft one?

Dear all,

the French Data Protection Supervisor is bringing google to the highest Court of the European Union because they claim that deletion should be global (until now google simply deleted from EU domains and geo-blocked EU searches). The court is now opening a two months period where organizations can send amicus letters positioning themselves on this issue.

This case will certainly have a huge impact on speech regulation and access to information everywhere and will certainly not only rescind to the right to be forgotten.

So my question to you all: would you be interested in writing together an amicus letter? Anyone volunteering to join a drafting group?

Warm regards,

Lorena

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publicness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to publi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/publicness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/CAEPc%3DLbJM_pwiN_4uGfqn%3DpPXucO5%3DsaycimYM0ZoWwrBxGnLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publicness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to publi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/publicness.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/305741819.3088315.1506008178903.JavaMail.zimbra%40article19.org.

[Lorena Jaume-Palasí]

Dear Gabrielle, dear Michael,

thanks for your prompt responses. Any organization, company, etc. is free to send an amicus curiae to the court. There are no formal requirements for an amicus curiae, but it should be short (one pager). Afaik there are a few consortia of organizations which have already sent a letter. So indeed, it would make sense to see if there are additional angles or arguments that can be added and try to avoid repeating the same (although there is some value when different actors repeat the same points). Since we are an intersdisciplinary group, the letter could be less formal from the legal point of view. I additionally think that the UN IGF DC background of the letter (also talking about the impact globally with voices from all continents) may bring a special accent into it. 

But of course, it is up to the group.

Regards

Lorena

2017-09-21 17:36 GMT+02:00 Gabrielle Guillemin <gabr...@article19.org>:

Hi Lorena and all,

ARTICLE 19 and others intervened in this case at domestic level. Our understanding is that it is difficult to intervene before the CJEU if you were not a party to the proceedings at domestic level.

We will be looking to make fresh submissions before the CJEU once the notice of referral is published in the official journal. Our understanding is that there is a 2 months window from publication. Here is a link to our submission before the Conseil d'Etat: https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38567/Google-CNIL-Final-Submission.pdf

Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

G

---

From: "'Lorena Jaume-Palasí' via Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 September, 2017 16:17:49
Subject: RTBF and global jurisdiction case now open for amicus letters. Do we want to draft one?

Dear all,

the French Data Protection Supervisor is bringing google to the highest Court of the European Union because they claim that deletion should be global (until now google simply deleted from EU domains and geo-blocked EU searches). The court is now opening a two months period where organizations can send amicus letters positioning themselves on this issue.

This case will certainly have a huge impact on speech regulation and access to information everywhere and will certainly not only rescind to the right to be forgotten.

So my question to you all: would you be interested in writing together an amicus letter? Anyone volunteering to join a drafting group?

Warm regards,

Lorena

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publicness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Lorena Jaume-Palasí]

Dear Barbora, all

yes, there is a possibility to send a letter supporting one party (no third party additional interests) based on Art. 40 of the Protocol on the Estatute of the CJEU

Article 40 

Member States and institutions of the Union may intervene in cases before the Court of Justice. The same right shall be open to the bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and to any other person which can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court. Natural or legal persons shall not intervene in cases between Member States, between institutions of the Union or between Member States and institutions of the Union. Without prejudice to the second paragraph, the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and also the EFTA Surveillance Authority referred to in that Agreement, may intervene in cases before the Court where one of the fields of application of that Agreement is concerned. An application to intervene shall be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties.

The Court has proved to treat the concept of "interest" very broad admitting positions from associations and even non registered entities representing public interest. Of course we do not have the chance to put a third position into the table, but merely to side up with one of the parties (and put pressure on public interest aspects). 

I like KS suggestion, to readapt the letter. 

What do you think?

Regards

Lorena

2017-09-22 3:56 GMT+02:00 kyungsinpark <kyungs...@korea.ac.kr>:

Lorena, I agree with you on, instead of reinventing the wheel, salvaging the joint letter and adapting to the litigation purpose.  One of the strongest arguments on CNIL case is that RTBF varies by country and is often a choice of ethics than rights/law and therefore one country’s delisting decision should not be blown up in its effect to delist from users in all other countries.  Our joint letter I think shows clearly that RTBF is matter of ethics and policy, not rights or law.  If anyone does a draft, I will jump in and contribute.  -- KS

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/CAEPc%3DLbbF0tE4A4O082AdGquq1uxZHbxAm1z7Mm-JD2_HEXO-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lorena Jaume-Palasí]

Dear Barbora,

you are referring the Art 42 to contest a judgement, so yes, to contest a judgement you need the judgement to happen first. The basis of art. 40 is a different one, it is about intervention to side up with a party, not about contestation. So a letter can be sent in advance within the 2 month period that will be opened to send positions to Member States etc. making clear why we as a party have a legitimate interest and taking side on one position (I quote the end of the Art. 40. " An application to intervene shall be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties. The sentence makes clear that this intervention must necessarily happen in advance. So we do have a chance to send a letter as long as it complies with the requirements stipulated in Art. 40.

Warm regards 

Lorena

2017-09-22 10:36 GMT+02:00 Barbora Bukovska <bar...@article19.org>:

Lorena, hi,

there are no basis in the court proceedings for your proposal. Might be good to check the whole Rules of the Court, in particular Article 157 on the third party proceedings.

You should check also the CJEU Statute (Article 42)

"Member States, institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and any other natural or legal persons may, in cases and under conditions to be determined by the Rules of Procedure, institute third-party proceedings to contest a judgment renderedwithout their being heard, where the judgment is prejudicial to their rights."

Under the Rules of the Court (Article 157), the third party proceedings/amicus by others are only permitted once the CJEU decided the case and this happens only 2 moths after the CJEU issued a judgement and it is published it in the Official Journal. After this, the third party can request to intervene if this decision is prejudicial to their rights. 

At this stage, the case is in the Opinion procedure in which only "parties" to the case (as determined by domestic courts) can intervene. The section you refers to only applies when the CJEU actually decides the case and then, only if it can be determined that it is prejudicial to your rights.

Best

Barbora

 

 

---

From: "Lorena Jaume-Palasí" <lorena.jaume.palasi@googlemail.com>
To: "kyungsinpark" <kyungs...@korea.ac.kr>, "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Gabrielle Guillemin" <gabr...@article19.org>, "Barbora" <bar...@article19.org>
Sent: Friday, 22 September, 2017 09:19:17

[Lorena Jaume-Palasí]

Dear Barbora

many thanks for the details, can you please specify what the concrete question was? It was based on Art 42. right? You were argumenting on the basis of art. 42, which requests for a higher, more invasive say in the process. Art. 40 of the protocol is very clear on this and has been used before to do exactly this (an amicus curiae during the time of the positioning). As you can see in the Art. we fulfill all requirements, the case is not between a member state and an institution of the EU or among diverse member states. And the concept of interest based on art. 40 has traditionally been based on a broad concept of interest, the public interest. > And the name of our DC is almost predestined to make an argument for this (which would not additionally demand having to place a third position). 

I have the feeling that we could clear this on a call way faster. Should we try to schedule one for next week?

Warm regards and a great weekend to all,

Lorena

2017-09-22 12:33 GMT+02:00 Barbora Bukovska <bar...@article19.org>:

Hi Lorena,

there is certainly a lot of confusion about the third party intervention at the CJEU, given different types of procedings there and very complex rules of procedure.

This particular proceedings is called the preliminary ruling procedure. It is a mechanism which allows national courts to submit questions to the European Court of Justice, on the interpretation or validity of a European law provision applicable to the case at stake. Article 96 of the Rules of the Court specify who can participate in this particular proceeding. This is very limited and only "the parties to the main proceedings", the European Commission, member states and few other bodies are authorised to submit observations to the court.

This was explicitly confirmed to A19 by the CJEU - we made an inquiry.

So unless you were recognised as a party in the domestic proceedings, the Court will not consider your submission. It is not clear whether those who filed amicus in domestic proceedings are automatically recognised as parties.

I suggest you check this with the CJEU and French lawyers before starting to draft.

Hope this helps,

Best

Barbora

---

From: "Lorena Jaume-Palasí" <lorena.jaume.palasi@googlemail.com>
To: "Barbora" <bar...@article19.org>
Cc: "kyungsinpark" <kyungs...@korea.ac.kr>, "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" <publi...@googlegroups.com>, "Gabrielle Guillemin" <gabr...@article19.org>
Sent: Friday, 22 September, 2017 10:13:48

[Michael J. Oghia]

For the record Lorena, I support sending a message, and would be happy to help draft or at least edit one.

Best,

-Michael

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/CAEPc%3DLZfdVNMbVmEkpsjbF%2B6KZLCQZQ%2BD-kH28CxkeL-5kosKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lorena Jaume-Palasí]

Dear Michael,

noted, many thanks.

Dear Barbara,

yes, there are different cases - there are also positive cases, where the letters were accepted (like e.g. in the case of the italian consumer initiative against the French sugar company), specially when based on art.40. It does depend on the when (not to contest the decision, but to side a position during the process), whether there is a public interest case in there, whether the party is siding with one of the concerned two parties or offering a third position - not viable-, who are the parties of the case (not possible if among MS only or MS and EU institutions). In any case my question would be: is it worth to give it a try and write a one pager or should we focus on other things?

The coalition was created on the ocassion of the RTBF, because it is having a global impact. Now the CNIL case is definitely about global jurisdiction and if the answer is a yes, this will also apply for any other digital regulation (and will be a precedent for many countries). Imo writing a letter is within the scope and goals of the coalition, but this is simply my personal opinion and I appreciate very much this conversation we are having, because I think it is important. 

So after all things considered, I would be happy to hear you all here and see whether we want to risk to write a one pager or rather focus on other aspects, which is also fine, since we have a lot to do until Geneva.

Looking forward for your feedback,

Lorena

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi

It's a great idea for the DC to be involved in amicus briefings

Bestbits.net has just had a revamp as well and maybe we can post the DC Statement for sign on or other materials if the group thinks it is a good idea

Thanks 

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Thanks KS 

Will do that then and post when it is ready

Em 4 de out de 2017 1:50 AM, "Kyung Sin Park" <kyungs...@korea.ac.kr> escreveu:

Yes on posting!

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publicness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to publi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/publicness.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/aaea28de-23fa-4da6-9c6c-4dd4313d480e%40googlegroups.com.

[Aida Noblia]

+1

Aída

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dynamic Coalition on Publicness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publicness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to publi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/publicness.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/aaea28de-23fa-4da6-9c6c-4dd4313d480e%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aida Noblia

[Amanda Yi Tzu Lu]

I am also interested !

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/publicness/CAGMb9p1hr1uR1h1UcjApQjrwRa8qwz1TCRS5rvP33JrTBO6Whg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Cheers,

Amanda

0933629312

luy...@gmail.com