Search results : 499

On 15 July 2014, the Dutch authority for consumers and markets (Autoriteit Consument en Markt) (ACM) imposed an order for periodic penalty payments on the Dutch public broadcaster NPO (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep) (see IRIS 2014-8/33). The NPO placed tracking cookies on end-user devices without correctly informing the end-user. Therefore, according to the ACM, the requisite consent for the placing of the tracking cookies was not in accordance with Article 11.7a of the Dutch telecommunications act (Telecommunicatiewet) and the Dutch data protection act (Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens). In order...

On 1 September 2014, an amendment to the Dutch frequency allocation regulation, the 'Frequentiebesluit 2013' (Frequency Decree 2013), entered into force. This regulation sets out rules and guidelines for the distribution of spectrum usage rights by the Minister for Economic Affairs. The aim of the 2014 amendments is to increase legal certainty for current and prospective licensees by ensuring timely ministerial decisions on the granting of licenses (for previous amendments, see IRIS 2003-1:12). The Frequentiebesluit of 2013 was an attempt at creating a more flexible framework for the allocation...

On 15 and 17 September 2014, the Dutch legislator issued two bills on the protection of journalistic sources. The bills follow several judgments against the Netherlands for violating Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases concerning journalists and source protection. With three violations on the matter in the last seven years (Voskuil v. the Netherlands (2007), see IRIS 2008-4/2); Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands (2010), (see IRIS 2010-10/2); and Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (2012), (see IRIS 2013-2/2), the Dutch government...

On 18 September 2014, the Amsterdam Court handed down the first national application of the EU Court of Justice’s Google Spain judgment (see IRIS 2014-6:1/3). The case was initiated by a convicted criminal after Google had not fully granted his online removal requests. The court rejected the claim, but it should be noted that the case strongly depends on its specific circumstances. Although the case concerns a judgment in summary proceedings, it is interesting to assess the court’s considerations. The facts are as follows: in 2012, the plaintiff had been convicted for attempted incitement to assassination....

On 27 August 2014, the Amsterdam District Court handed down its judgment in a case brought by LIRA (a collective rights management organisation for authors) against three cable companies for violation of copyright. LIRA had claimed that the cable companies UPC, Zeelandnet, and Ziggo showed content to their subscribers, which infringed the copyright of authors represented by LIRA. In October 2012, the cable companies stopped paying LIRA for the offering of the content to their subscribers.  In the district court, the cable companies argued that the authors lacked the authority to transfer their...