Search results : 499

On 1 March 2015, the police raided a warehouse in Brunssum and discovered a drugs laboratory. Two persons were arrested. The local broadcaster made a video report covering the raid and police investigation and this video was posted on its website. The footage was then sold to the regional broadcaster, who re-edited it and placed it on its website accompanied by text written by the regional broadcaster. The raid was also covered on the regional broadcaster’s news programme. The plaintiffs are a family whose members are also the partners in a commercial partnership. In the video report, the street...

On 31 March 2015, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in a case where the plaintiff, a convicted criminal, demanded to have certain search results delisted from Google Search based on search queries limited to his name. The Court of first instance rejected plaintiff’s claim to be delisted from Google Search (see IRIS 2014-10/25). The plaintiff was convicted for the attempted incitement of a contract killing. The conviction was primarily based on audiovisual evidence, which revealed that the plaintiff had discussed a murder with a contract killer, gathered by a Dutch crime reporter by means of hidden...

On 3 March 2015, the Commissariaat voor de Media (Dutch Media Authority - CvdM) published its decision of 3 February 2015 with regards to the application of Netflix as a commercial on-demand audiovisual media service. In this decision, the Dutch Media Authority accepted Netflix’s application. The result is that Netflix is, from now on, supervised by the Dutch Media Authority in Europe and should adhere to the Dutch Media Act (Mediawet 2008). On 1 January 2015, Netflix International B.V. changed its place of establishment, switching from Luxembourg to the Netherlands. On 9 January 1015, Netflix...

In a judgment on preliminary relief proceedings on 16 January 2015, the District Court of Midden-Nederland refused to prevent a television broadcast that might harm someone’s personal and business interests. The case demonstrates how Dutch courts balance freedom of expression and the right to respect for privacy. The plaintiff worked as a physiotherapist and was convicted for possessing child pornography in 2007. The defendant intended to devote attention to the plaintiff’s conviction in a television broadcast about the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant should...

On 12 February 2015, the Amsterdam Court ruled on a case where the plaintiff requested that Google modify its search results based on search queries containing certain words including, but not limited to the plaintiff’s name. This is the second occasion where the Amsterdam Court has been asked to rule on this subject, popularly referred to as the “right to be forgotten” (see IRIS 2014-10/25). The facts of the case were the following. The plaintiff, a well-known partner at the auditing company KPMG, became involved in a dispute with his contractor, who was reconstructing the plaintiff’s home. The...