Case Note: Google Spain and Google

Spahiu, Irma

doi:10.54648/euro2015039

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nationality/Territorial Diversity The tribunal noted that the same objection had been rejected in the Charanne, Isolux and Eiser cases. 193 It added that such a "wide exclusion" would have to be express and clear.194 It did not find support for the objection in the ECT's purpose, as stated in its Art. 2.195 Similarly, no specific provisions of the ECT supported this objection.…”

Section: 282mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It identified three patterns of reasoning that other tribunals had adopted 422 Ibid [191]. 423 Ibid [193]. 424 Ibid [195].…”

Section: 2193mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…30(4) LSE to the following wording: Additionally, and in the terms legally determined by Royal Decree of the Council of Ministers, for the remuneration for the sale of generated energy valued at market applied to all plants which were already in operation on the date of its entry into force. 193 In short, RDL 9/2013 eliminated the entire Special Regime consisting of FIT and Premiums, and replaced it by a system which provided for a "specific remuneration" ("Special Payment") based on "standard" (but not actual) costs per unit of installed power, plus standard amounts for operating costs. 194 The New Regime was based on the investment costs of "model facilities" defined by reference to "an efficient and well-managed company".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tribunal concluded that "the stability of the regulatory regime for investments in the RE sector was thus the leitmotiv of Spain's acts" at the relevant time. 193 It considered registration with the RAIPRE to be more than merely an administrative requirement. Given the precision and detail of the regulatory framework, particularly in Arts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1251 Perenco v.Ecuador, supra note 38 [681]. 1252 See for example: LG&E v. Argentina, supra note 34[193], Biwater v. Tanzania, supra note 13[463], Telenor v.Hungary, supra note 1178 [70]. 1253 See for example: AES v. Hungary, supra note 37 [14.3.2], Sempra v. Argentina, supra note 28 [285], PSEG v. Turkey, supra note 1063 [278], Enron v. Argentina, supra note 19 [245], Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID Case No.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Renewable Energy Arbitration – Quo Vadis?

Balcerzak¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: 282mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It identified three patterns of reasoning that other tribunals had adopted 422 Ibid [191]. 423 Ibid [193]. 424 Ibid [195].…”

Section: 2193mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Renewable Energy Arbitration – Quo Vadis?

Balcerzak¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Right to Be Forgotten in Data Protection Law and Two Western Cultures of Privacy

Kohl

2023

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data protection law has emerged as an important bulwark against online privacy intrusions, and yet its status within privacy law remains awkward. Its starting point of protecting ‘personal’ rather than ‘private’ information puts it at odds with privacy more generally. Indeed, in its very design, data protection law caters for the protection of public personal information, or personal information which has attained a degree of publicness through disclosure. Building on James Whitman's comparative privacy study, this article argues that data protection law is not the odd bedfellow of privacy law properly so called but may be understood as a manifestation of the Continental European culture of privacy. Its distinctiveness does not lie in its apparent technicality but in its robust openness to privacy in public—an idea that is alien to the Anglo-American culture of privacy. Whilst these two cultures of privacy have long ‘met’ in different jurisdictions, this article locates their enduring influence and antagonism within three contemporary privacy regimes. By taking the right to be forgotten, as an archetypal privacy-in-public right, in the testing context of spent criminal convictions, the article gauges the comparative openness to such claims, first, of the Court of Justice of the European Union as the authoritative voice on General Data Protection Regulation normativity; secondly, of the US judiciary as committed to the First and Fourth Amendment; and, thirdly, of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its fused Anglo-American and Continental European privacy jurisprudence. It is the latter jurisprudence in particular that highlights the tensions arising from trying to marry the two privacy traditions, or merge data protection and ‘privacy’ law. Yet, these tensions also offer insights and opportunities.

show abstract

Case Note: Google Spain and Google

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Renewable Energy Arbitration – Quo Vadis?

Renewable Energy Arbitration – Quo Vadis?

The Right to Be Forgotten in Data Protection Law and Two Western Cultures of Privacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About