Παρέμβαση στο ΣτΕ υπέρ του νόμου για τα ΑΕΙ

Παρέμβαση υπέρ της συνταγματικότητας του νέου νόμου για τα ΑΕΙ έκαναν στο Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας έξι καθηγητές της νομικής (οι κ. Αλιβιζάτος, Δρόσος, Τασόπουλος, Τσακυράκης, Μανιτάκης, Σταθόπουλος)

Οι «6» παρενέβησαν στο ανώτατο δικαστήριο υπέρ του κύρους των υπουργικών αποφάσεων που εξεδόθησαν κατ' εφαρμογήν του νέου νόμου πλαισίου για τα ΑΕΙ και κατά των οποίων έχουν προσφύγει με αίτηση ακυρώσεως 24 ΑΕΙ και 41 μέλη των πρυτανικών συμβουλίων τους.

Οι καθηγητές της Νομικής τονίζουν, ότι κάθε νόμος με τον οποίο κάποιος διαφωνεί δεν είναι απαραιτήτως αντισυνταγματικός. Η εκδίκαση της προσφυγής έχε οριστεί για τις 3 Φεβρουαρίου.

Πηγή: Καθημερινή 25/01/2012

Η μεταβολή της βάσης της αγωγής στην πολιτική δίκη Άρθρο 224 ΚΠολΔ

Συγγραφέας: Άνθιμος Μ. Απόστολος

Η έννοια της μεταβολής της βάσης της αγωγής αποτελεί ένα από τα πλέον δυσχερή προβλήματα της πολιτικής δίκης, το οποίο απασχολεί ισότιμα ερευνητές, δικαστές, και δικηγόρους. Αδιάψευστος μάρτυρας η ογκώδης νομολογία των δικαστηρίων μας, που αυξάνεται αδιάκοπα.

Μέχρι σήμερα δεν είχε επιχειρηθεί μονογραφική προσέγγιση της θεματικής. Η παρούσα έκδοση, η οποία συνεκτίμησε και συμπεριλαμβάνει τις αλλαγές που επήλθαν με τον ν. 3994/2011, ανατέμνει τη νομοτυπική μορφή της 224 ΚΠολΔ, καταγράφοντας αναλυτικά και με πλήρη νομολογιακή τεκμηρίωση τις ανεπίτρεπτες και επιτρεπτές μορφές μεταβολής: Στην πρώτη κατηγορία κατατάσσει την αντικατάσταση της αρχικής και την προσθήκη νέας ιστορικής βάσης, καθώς και την απόπειρα συμπλήρωσης αόριστης αγωγής, ενώ στη δεύτερη τις εκφάνσεις της συμπλήρωσης, διευκρίνισης, και διόρθωσης του εισαγωγικού δικογράφου, με διαρκείς αναφορές σε περιπτωσιολογία, χρήσιμη για κάθε νομικό της πράξης, που πολλές φορές πασχίζει να διασώσει την τελευταία στιγμή το δικόγραφό του. Επιπρόσθετα, ειδική ανάλυση λαμβάνει χώρα ως προς το συναφές ζήτημα της μεταβολής στοιχείων που άπτονται των διαδικαστικών προϋποθέσεων της δίκης (με έμφαση στην ενεργητική & παθητική νομιμοποίηση, και το έννομο συμφέρον), καθώς και στη σχέση της 224 ΚΠολΔ προς τις συναφείς διατάξεις των άρθρων 236, 227 & 254 ΚΠολΔ.

Παράλληλα, η μελέτη καταγράφει για πρώτη φορά όλες τις πτυχές του ζητήματος, παρουσιάζει δηλαδή συστηματικά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 224 ΚΠολΔ σε όλες τις εκφάνσεις της πολιτικής δίκης. Ειδικότερα, η μεταβολή της βάσης εξετάζεται όχι μόνο σε σχέση με το κλασσικό εισαγωγικό ένδικο βοήθημα της αγωγής κατά την τακτική διαδικασία, αλλά στο σύνολο των υφιστάμενων ενδίκων βοηθημάτων και μέσων, δηλαδή, για την παρέμβαση, την προσεπίκληση και ανακοίνωση, την ανακοπή σε όλες τις νοητές της εκδοχές, την αίτηση ασφαλιστικών μέτρων, τη διαδικασία της εκούσιας δικαιοδοσίας, τις ειδικές διαδικασίες (με έμφαση στις οικογενειακές, μισθωτικές και εργατικές διαφορές), την ανταγωγή, την αίτηση έκδοσης διαταγής πληρωμής, την ανακοπή ερημοδικίας, την έφεση, την αναψηλάφηση, και την αναίρεση. Παράλληλα, λαμβάνονται υπόψη, ερευνώνται και αποσαφηνίζονται οι διαδικαστικές διαφορές κατά την εκδίκαση στα πρωτοβάθμια δικαστήρια , και η σημασία τους ως προς το εξεταστέο ζήτημα της μεταβολής της βάσης, και τους παραδεκτούς τρόπους επιστράτευσης της 224 εδ. β' ΚΠολΔ.

Πρόκειται για βιβλίο απόλυτα πρακτικό, ευσύνοπτο, με πλήρη νομολογιακή και βιβλιογραφική κάλυψη μέχρι τα τέλη του 2011, ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμο για δικαστικούς λειτουργούς των πολιτικών δικαστηρίων και μαχόμενους δικηγόρους.

BILETA ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2012 - CALL FOR PAPERS

29 - 30 MARCH, NORTHUMBRIA LAW SCHOOL
'Too many laws, too few examples’
The 27th Annual BILETA Conference will be hosted by Northumbria Law School on 29th
- 30th March 2012.

The conference theme is taken from the words of the French revolutionary, Louis Antoine Léon de SaintJust. They go to the heart of a long debate about regulation – how best to regulate human activities, and inspire good conduct. Saint-Just was in no doubt: he states the case in words that echo a complex debate about the nature of regulation in human affairs that stretches back over two millennia, and which is central to the technological issues of the twenty-first century.

Participants are invited to the BILETA 2012 Conference (law.unn.ac.uk/bileta) to enter the debate with reference to law, technology and legal education. Do too many laws stifle human aspiration and creativity? Or do we have the wrong laws? Is legal regulation the only way to achieve justice in our technological societies? Are our lives happier because we have ever more laws governing our use of technology? In relation to legal education, regulators internationally themselves are opening debate on their regulatory regimes – how best can technology be regulated for educational and ethical purposes in learning Justice?

Conference papers, or abstracts (approximately 300 words), should be submitted by the deadline of 10th January 2012. All submissions will be reviewed by Stream Chairs and presenters will be notified of Chairs decisions by 14th February 2012.

Key areas for streams include:
• Legal education, regulation and technology-enhanced learning
• Regulation of ISPs
• E-commerce and e-governance
• Internet censorship and surveillance
• Computer and internet crime
• ICANN and domain names
• Intellectual property
• Privacy
• Internet access and human rights
• Social networking
Ideas for further streams and expressions of interest in convening a stream are very welcome. Please
email your submission (full paper or abstract) or expression of interest to convene a stream by 10th
January 2012 to: Abhilash Nair, abhilash.nair@northumbria.ac.uk

Η χρήση υπηρεσιών κοινωνικής δικτύωσης από δικηγόρους

ΣΥΝΗΓΟΡΟΣ 2011 (88)

Book Review: Copyright Enforcement and the Internet

Copyright Enforcement and the Internet
Edited by: Irini Stamatoudi
Imprint: Kluwer Law International 2010
ISBN: 9789041133465
Format: Hardcover

Google Preview

Copyright infringements are taking place on a large scale on the Internet and in more particular, in platforms such as P2P networks. Due to the anarchic structure of the Internet, the effort of right holders of IP rights and national governments to enforce copyright faces many difficulties. Enforcement mechanisms such as the "three strikes system" are put in place which are heavily criticised. Hence, many remain pessimistic about the future of copyright protection.

This book, edited by I. Stamatoudi, comprises the contributions of many experts addressing issues of copyright enforcement on the Internet. Most of the existing European Union and international policies are considered in some depth, and the authors also discuss a variety of national laws and initiatives, technical measures, and the soft law and hard law models that have been proposed.

Some of the issues discussed in this book are the following: Directive 2004/48, ACTA, policies of international organisations, the role of ISPs, the graduated response in France (the 'HADOPI' law), Data protection issues, etc.

Book Review: Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law

Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law, Edited by Alain Strowel, Professor, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Brussels and University of Liège, Avocat, Belgium

Edward Elgar
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA


In this book prominent academics and specialised practitioners from the US and the EU offer a comprehensive review on the issue of secondary liability for copyright infringement, particularly P2P file sharing and online infringements. Some contributions analyse the relevant case law on third-party liability and their implications for the future. The decisions on P2P also involve issues of international law and data protection. Other more forward-looking contributions provide original insight into the future shape of copyright in the online world, for instance whether it could or even should evolve towards a compensation system. By combining these avenues, the book will be of particular interest to practitioners and legal scholars.


It follows an abstract from the Introduction:

Every book has a history. This book originates in a 2005 Brussels conference discussing the impact of peer to-peer technology on the future of copyright law. Peer-to-peer technology, as further explained below, allows people to exchange information over the Internet via many equal or ‘peer’ machines linked across a network, rather than on a central server. From a copyright point of view, the main controversy surrounding peer-to-peer networks is whether providers of peer-to-peer technology and services can be liable when users infringe copyright through their networks. This issue has been hotly debated in legal circles and in the press, especially in 2005, when the US Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in the controversial case MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster Ltd.3 In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the two popular file-sharing networks, Grokster and Streamcast (dba Morpheus), were indeed liable for ‘actively inducing’ the end-users’ acts of infringement. As will be explained, the liability for inducement is one form of secondary liability for copyright infringement.

Peer-to-peer (or P2P) file sharing and secondary liability are the central themes in this collection of essays on copyright. Both topics are closely linked. ‘Secondary’ (or derived) liability presupposes a primary infringer. In peer-topeer networks, the primary infringers, those who upload copyrighted files without authorization, are numerous and difficult to reach, and going after them poses many legal and practical issues. Copyright owners thus prefer to direct their legal actions against those who allow or promote direct infringements, for instance, those who operate the peer-to-peer networks or develop the technical means (in particular the software) to make primary infringements online possible. The development of peer-to-peer networks over the Internet has, therefore, brought the issue of secondary liability to the forefront.

AMAZON

Δημόσια Διαβούλευση επί του «Πλαισίου Παροχής Υπηρεσιών Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης»

Με πρωτοβουλία του Υπουργείου Διοικητικής Μεταρρύθμισης και Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης, διενεργείται δημόσια διαβούλευση για το Πλαίσιο Παροχής Υπηρεσιών Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης προκειμένου στη συνέχεια να εκδοθεί σχετική Υπουργική Απόφαση για την Κύρωση Πλαισίου Παροχής Υπηρεσιών Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης.

Στόχος της διαβούλευσης είναι η εξεύρεση τρόπων για την απλούστευση των διαδικασιών, τη μείωση του διοικητικού βάρους, την εξάλειψη σημαντικού μέρους της υπάρχουσας γραφειοκρατίας, τον αποτελεσματικότερο έλεγχο των πιστοποιητικών και την ταχύτερη, αποδοτικότερη επικοινωνία των δημοσίων φορέων μεταξύ τους και γενικότερα τον εκσυγχρονισμό του κράτους σχετικά με την παροχή ηλεκτρονικών υπηρεσιών από τους φορείς προς κάθε ενδιαφερόμενο (πολίτη – government to citizen, επιχείρηση – government to business και άλλο δημόσιο φορέα-government to government).

Η δημόσια διαβούλευση θα ολοκληρωθεί την Δευτέρα 23 Ιανουαρίου 2012.

Περισσότερες πληροφορίες, υποστηρικτικό υλικό και διαδικασία συμμετοχής στη διαβούλευση είναι διαθέσιμες στη σχετική σελίδα του Υπουργείου Διοικητικής Μεταρρύθμισης και Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης.



[Εξωτ. σύνδεσμος: http://www.opengov.gr/minreform/?p=129 ]

Tο πρόγραμμα Open Court

Ένα νέο, πιλοτικό πρόγραμμα, το πρόγραμμα "Ανοικτό Δικαστήριο" (Open Court) στις ΗΠΑ εγκαινιάζει μια νέα πρακτική που φέρνει τον πολίτη εγγύτερα προς τη δικαιοσύνη και ενισχύει την ανεξαρτησία της. Ειδικότερα, έχοντας ως πλατφόρμα επικοινωνίας την ιστοσελίδα opencourt.us , με την υποστήριξη του Ιδρύματος Knight News, και σε συνεργασία με το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο της Μασαχουσέτης και το Cyberlaw Clinic of Harvard Law School, βιντεοσκοπούνται και προβάλλονται σε ανοικτή μετάδοση μέσω του Διαδικτύου οι συνεδριάσεις του Δικαστηρίου του Κουίνσι, ενώ παράλληλη παρέχεται πρόσβαση σε ασύρματο δίκτυο για τους δημοσιογράφους και κατόχους ιστολογίων που επιθυμούν να μεταδίδουν νέα από τα δικαστήρια στα νέα μέσα.

Η ζωντανή βιντεοσκόπηση των συνεδριάσεων των δικαστηρίων γίνεται σύμφωνα με τους δικονομικούς κανόνες της Μασαχουσέτης και μπορεί να απαγορεύεται σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις. Ειδικότερα, αυτή λαμβάνει χώρα όταν είναι παρών ένας δικαστής, ο οποίος ελέγχει τη διαδικασία και μπορεί να ορίσει τη διακοπή της βιντεοσκόπησης.

Στο τέλος της ημέρας, οι καταγραφές αρχειοθετούνται και δημοσιεύονται στο αρχείο της ιστοσελίδας.

Το πρόγραμμα αυτό έχει ως σκοπό να αναδείξει πειραματικά την επίδραση των νέων τεχνολογιών στην απονομή της δικαιοσύνης, με την πεποίθηση ότι η διαφάνεια στην δικαστική πρακτική συμβάλλει στην ενίσχυση της δημοκρατίας.

Για ζωντανή αναμετάδοση βλ. εδώ

Διατήρηση δεδομένων ηλεκτρονικών επικοινωνιών

Προβλήματα στην εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 2006/24 για τη διατήρηση δεδομένων που παράγονται ή υποβάλλονται σε επεξεργασία σε συνάρτηση με την παροχή διαθεσίμων στο κοινό υπηρεσιών ηλεκτρονικών επικοινωνιών ή δημοσίων δικτύων επικοινωνιών" διαφαίνονται, σύμφωνα με Έκθεση της Επιτροπής της ΕΕ (15-12-2011), καθώς μόνο 7 από τα 27 κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ ενσωμάτωσαν μέχρις στιγμής την οδηγία στο εσωτερικό τους δίκαιο.

Στην έκθεση επισημαίνεται η κοινή αντίληψη ότι η αξία της διατήρησης δεδομένων είναι μικρή και η ότι υφίσταται νομική ανασφάλεια ως προς τις κατηγορίες δεδομένων που υπόκεινται σε διατήρηση, σε σχέση με τη διαθεσιμότητα των δεδομένων, ενώ δεν υπάρχει σύστημα επιτήρησης επί των διατηρούμενων δεδομένων κοκ. Ακόμα, στην Έκθεση προβάλλεται η ανάγκη εξέτασης πιθανών λύσεων για την αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας.

Privacy issues of smartphones

CNIL, the French Data Protection Authority published on 13th December 2011 the results of a study concerning privacy issues of smartphones. It is entitled: "smartphone and private life: a friend who wishes you well?"
Smart mobile phones such as iPhone, Androied, Windows Phone, Blackberry, are now in the hands of 17 millions of French people and thus, it is appropriate to study their uses and privacy implications. The Study Smartphone et viee privee is published in: http://www.cnil.fr/

Basically, the CNIL ackonwledges that the smartphone is a universal terminal that can be adapted to the uses of every person. Some use it to communicate, while others to store photos, videos, etc., but 7 out of 10 persons never loose touch from it. There is however limited protection of data stored in smartphones and no transparency. Geolocalisation poses also many problems.

Subsequently, the CNIL lays down 10 security tips:

1. Do not store confidential information (PINs, access codes, bank account ...) in your smartphone (theft, hacking, identity theft ...).
2. Do not disable the PIN code and also, change the default PIN. Choose a complicated code. Not your birthday!
3. Set up an autolock period of the phone. In addition to the PIN, it can inactivate (lock) the phone after a while. This prevents the consultation of the information in the phone if lost or stolen.
4. Enable encryption if possible backup of the phone. For this, use the settings of the platform with which you connect the phone. This action will ensure that no one will be able to use your data without the password you set.
5. Install an antivirus when possible.
6. Note the number "IMEI" to block the phone if lost or stolen.
7. Do not download application from unknown sources. Prefer official platforms.
8. Check on what data on your smartphone application that you install will have access.
9. Read the terms and conditions of service before installing it. The views of other users may also be useful!
10. Adjust the settings in the phone or in the location-based applications (Twitter, Foursquare, Plyce ...) to always control when and by whom you want to be geolocated. Turn off the GPS or WiFi when you do not use more than one location-based application.

EU DIRECTIVE Proposal on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

On 29.3.2010 the Commission presented a proposal for a new law on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography [COM(2010)94 final]. The proposed Directive aims to build a more coherent framework to increase effectiveness in preventing and combating this type of crime and protecting the victims. This proposalis intended to repeal the Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. The proposal contains provisions aimed at extending the criminalisation of child sexual abuse and exploitation and child pornography.

The most important provisions of the Directive are the following:

Art. 3 Offences concerning sexual abuse

2. Causing, for sexual purposes, a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent
under national law to witness sexual abuse or sexual activities, even without having to participate, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
3. Engaging in sexual activities with a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent under national law shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
4. Engaging in sexual activities with a child, where:
(i) abuse is made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over the child shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years; or
(ii) abuse is made of a particularly vulnerable situation of the child, notably because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years; or
(iii) use is made of coercion, force or threats shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.
5. Coercing a child into sexual activities with a third party shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.

Art. 4 Offences concerning sexual exploitation
2. Causing a child to participate in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
3. Profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child participating in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
4. Knowingly attending pornographic performances involving the participation of children shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
5. Recruiting a child to participate in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
6. Causing a child to participate in child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
7. Profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child participating in child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years
8. Engaging in sexual activities with a child, where recourse is made to child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
9. Coercing a child to participate in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years.
10. Recruiting a child to participate in child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years.
11. Coercing a child into child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.

Art. 5 Offences concerning child pornography
2. Acquisition or possession of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least one year.
3. Knowingly obtaining access, by means of information and communication technology, to child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least one year.
4. Distribution, dissemination or transmission of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
5. Offering, supplying or making available child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
6. Production of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.

Art. 6 Solicitation of children for sexual purposes
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:
The proposal, by means of information and communication technology, by an adult to meet a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent under national law, for the purpose of committing any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 (3) and Article 5 (6), where this proposal has been followed by material acts leading to such a meeting, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.

Art. 8 Consensual sexual activities between peers
The provisions of Article 3 (2), with regard to witnessing sexual activities, and (3); Article 4 (2) and (4) and Article 5 do not govern consensual sexual activities between children or involving persons who are close in age and degree of psychological and physical development or maturity, insofar as the acts did not involve any abuse.

Art.9 Aggravating circumstances
1. In so far as the following circumstances do not already form part of the constituent elements of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, they shall be considered as aggravating circumstances for the purposes of this Directive:
(a) the child has not reached the age of sexual consent under national law;
(b) the offence was committed against a child in a particularly vulnerable situation, notably because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence;
(c) the offence was committed by a member of the family, a person cohabiting with the child or a person having abused their authority;
(d) the offence was committed by several people acting together;
(e) the offences are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation within the meaning of Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA10;
(f) the perpetrator has previously been convicted of offences of the same nature.
(g) the offence endangered the life of the child;
(h) the offence involved serious violence or caused serious harm to the child.

Art. 11 Liability of legal persons
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons may be held liable for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person.

Art. 16 Jurisdiction and coordination of prosecution
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 where:
(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part within its territory; or
(b) the offender is one of its nationals or has a habitual residence in its territory; or
(c) the offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who has a habitual residence in its territory; or
(d) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in the territory of that Member State.


Art. 18 Assistance and support to victims
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support are provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings.


Art. 19 Protection of child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and proceedings, judicial authorities appoint a special representative for the child victim where, by national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim, or where the child is unaccompanied or separated from the family.

Art. 21 Blocking access to websites containing child pornography

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtain the blocking of access by Internet users in their territory to Internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography. The blocking of access shall be subject to adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the blocking is limited to what is necessary, that users are informed of the reason for the blocking and that content providers, as far as possible, are informed of the possibility of challenging it.
2. Without prejudice to the above, Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtain the removal of internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography.

EU Study: Towards a New EU Legal Framework for Data Protection and Privacy

The EU Directorare General for Internal Policies recently published a Study on a New EU Legal Framework for Data Protection and Privacy, which was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

This study addresses the new challenges stemming from data processing policies and systems falling in the scope of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. It identifies a set of common basic principles and standards for the genuine assurance of data protection in all the phases of EU policymaking and for the effective implementation of this fundamental right.
The study puts forward a set of recommendations to guide the European Parliament’s role and legislative inputs into the upcoming revision of the EU legal framework on data protection, which is expected to be launched by the end of 2011.

The authors of the study are:
Prof. Didier Bigo (Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits, C&C)
Dr Sergio Carrera (Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS)
Ms Gloria González Fuster (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)
Prof Elspeth Guild (CEPS and Radboud University of Nijmegen)
Prof. Paul de Hert (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)
Dr Julian Jeandesboz (Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits, C&C)
Dr Vagelis Papakonstantinou (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)

Proposal for an EU-Regulation on Data Protection

On 29/11/2001 the EU announced a Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

This consistis in two legislative proposals:
– a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), and
– a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection
of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for
the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or
the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data (Police and
Criminal Justice Data Protection Directive).

Please read the Proposal