Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Welcome to spring and the top five commercial developments in April.
The decision in the Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others case (Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594-12) will have far-reaching implications for data retention and data protection in the EU and further afield.
In this case, the European Court of Justice declared that the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) was invalid. The court’s declaration of invalidity takes effect from the date on which the directive entered into force (ie, on 3 May 2006).
The purpose of the Data Retention Directive was to harmonise member states’ provisions concerning the retention of certain data by telecommunications providers, among others. The directive stated that providers had to retain traffic and location data as well as related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user. However, it did not permit the retention of the content of the communication or of information consulted.
The court held that current collection practices, taken as a whole, may provide very precise information on the private lives of the persons whose data are retained, such as the habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or other movements, activities carried out, social relationships and the social environments frequented. Collecting such information interfered in a serious way with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.
The Court also held that there were insufficient safeguards against the risk of abuse and against any unlawful access and use of data including outside of the EU. The retention of data should genuinely be for reasons such as the fight against serious crime or terrorism. It also found that the provisions relating to data retention periods were unlawful in that it did provide for a sophisticated enough mechanism to determine what time period should apply.
On the date the judgment was handed out, 8 April 2014, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Celilia Malmström, confirmed that the European Commission will be carefully assessing the judgment and its impact. She further stated that it, ‘will take its work forward in light of progress made in relation to the revision of the e-Privacy directive and taking into account the negotiations on the data protection framework’.
The President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, stated that the European Commission will have to make a new proposal that, 'strikes the right balance between the legitimate interests at stake' and which also, 'enshrine[s] a high level of data protection'.
Following the ruling, the Commission published a set of Q&As related to the matter. The Commission indicates the importance of data retention for criminal justice systems and law enforcement. It also gives a short overview of what national constitutional courts have said about data retention and the Directive. Finally, the document makes an attempt at answering what will happen to national legislation following the Court's decision.
In conclusion, it is clear that a more proportionate approach to data retention will need to be considered and therefore a blanket approach to collecting data in the future is unlikely to be lawful.
The High Court has considered the meaning of 'issued and served' in a share and business sale agreement in T&L Sugars Limited v Tate & Lyle Industries Limited  EWHC 1066 (Comm).
The dispute about the meaning of the phrase arose in the context of a preliminary hearing on whether the claims were issued and served in time under the agreement. The issue was whether the phrase 'issued and served' had the meaning given to it by the Civil Procedure Rules; or simply delivered and received in a non-legal sense.
The judge held that the phrase meant served in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules, in particular because there were contrasting provisions in the agreement for service of contractual notices and for service of legal process. Therefore the parties were aware that service of legal process was distinct from contractual notices.
The word 'issued' when used in connection with proceedings had to mean issued in accordance with the procedural rules in force in England at the relevant time and so in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Members of the European Parliament have voted to cap the amount of service or interchange fees that banks charge retailers for processing shoppers’ payments. The proposal caps those fees at 0.3% of credit card transaction values and in relation to debit cards the fee would be capped at either €0.07 or 0.2% of the transaction value, whichever is lower.
The caps would apply to both cross-border transactions within the EU and to those transactions which take place within a Member State. Measures to make online payments safer, reduce costs and give users more choice were also adopted by a separate vote and the proposals cover:
Further consideration of the draft proposals will take place later in the summer.
Does a journalist’s failure to obtain information from the Charity Commission about its inquiries, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000), prevent him from requesting the material on another basis?
The claimant journalist had sought disclosure under FIA 2000 from the Charity Commission of documents relating to inquiries that it had conducted. Disclosure had been refused on the ground that it was information covered by an absolute exemption from disclosure pursuant to FIA 2000 s32(2). That decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which also found that the exemption had not ceased when the inquiry had ended and that FIA 2000 s32(2) was not to be read down to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, art 10 (ECHR).
A number of new and revised exceptions to copyright are planned to be introduced in June 2014 under the following regulations:
If you have any burning thoughts in the meantime on the above developments, let us know below. Equally, if you have a spare minute, why not enter your name and email address in the box on the right hand side of this page? If you do so, you will receive all of the developments highlighted in our monthly round-up for free along with other exclusive content courtesy of our new Comet newsletter.
0330 161 1234