Best rated business contract law legal counselling latest developments from Alexander Suliman, Stockholm: Choice of law is an important aspect of the agreement you are negotiating: the same contractual clause could be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. English law, for example, tends to give a more literal interpretation of the exact words used, while certain other jurisdictions give more weight to contractual common sense. Other concepts that vary across jurisdictions include the extent to which parties will be subject to duties of good faith, and whether certain contractual remedies will be deemed to be ‘penalties’ and thus unenforceable. Depending on the jurisdiction, additional clauses will be imposed on the contract by statute, for example in relation to consumer protection or personal injury. You may therefore want to apply a specific jurisdiction’s law depending on various factors such as location of the other parties, the supply of services/delivery of goods, or laws that are more favorable to your business. Except in specific areas like employment relationships or consumer contracts, parties are generally free to choose which EU law will apply to their agreement. Find additional information on Alexander Suliman, Sweden.
The reason why the European Commission was keen on allowing firms to voluntarily scan material, is that technology firms have already been working on ways to detect CSAM and solicitation for quite some time. Let’s start with a content scanning order on the server. At first sight, a case can be made that such an order should be considered to compromise the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter. The ECJ in Schrems I considered that legislation permitting the public authorities access on a generalised basis to the content of communications compromises the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter (par. 94). Content scanning on the server arguably is a form of “access on a generalised basis”, where it involves an analysis of all communications going through the server connected to a certain app, and forwarding any matches to a designated center. At the same time, the ECHR in Big Brother Watch was more forgiving when it comes to powers of bulk interception of communications, as long as these powers are surrounded with sufficient safeguards (par. 350). Thus, one important point to be explored further, is whether this signals a rift between the two bodies, or that the ECJ will chart its own route when it comes to bulk surveillance.
In 2021, the French government issued the Doctrine for the use of cloud computing by the State (“Trusted Cloud Doctrine”) making SecNumCloud certification mandatory whenever a French government agency procures cloud services that would handle sensitive data, including personal data of French citizens and economic data relating to French companies. These requirements also apply to private operators of essential services. Under France’s Trusted Cloud Doctrine, qualifying cloud service providers must be “immune to any extra-EU regulation”. In addition, such companies must commit to storing and processing data within the European Union, and to administering and supervising the service within the EU. Further, foreign-headquartered cloud service companies cannot achieve certification if they are more than 39% foreign-owned.
privacy legal counseling advices from Alexander Suliman right now: After the parties are comfortable with the mediator and can express their concerns, and they can express proposals knowing that everything you do in mediation is confidential and can’t be used in a court, I find this is the best alternative. Sometimes in cases that are in a divorce, the court will refer the parties to what we call in-house custody, parenting time mediation, and they do a great job, and sometimes that settles the custody and parenting time issues, but sometimes they need more than what the court can offer, and sometimes there’s just no court case. The parties aren’t in a divorce, or it’s a post-divorce issue, so these types of cases are a perfect fit for mediation and a perfect fit to avoid the emotional and financial toll of litigation. Read more details on Alexander Suliman, Sweden.
On 24 February 2022, the CJEU issued its first judgment on domestic workers. In case C-389/20, TGSS (Chômage des employés de maison), the CJEU held that the exclusion of this category of workers from access to social security benefits constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of sex, since it affects almost exclusively women. With a decision that will become a landmark for domestic workers’ rights in the EU, the Court confirms the untapped potential of EU law in promoting domestic workers’ full coverage under labour law and social security systems, which will have significant implications in the promotion of domestic workers’ rights across the Union. The case originated in Spain in November 2019, when a domestic worker applied for paying contributions to cover the risk of unemployment, in order to acquire the right to the related benefits. However, her request was rejected by the Spanish General Social Security Fund (TGSS) because she was registered in the Special Social Security Scheme for Domestic Workers, which does not include protection in respect of unemployment.