Corte di Giustizia Europea - ECJ
European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, in case C-157/15,14 March 2017
(Discrimination based on religion or belief)

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive. By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

[ leggi]

European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, in Joined Cases C 203/15 and C 698/15, 21.12.2016
(Data Protection - Data Retention)

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication. Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation governing the protection and security of traffic and location data and, in particular, access of the competent national authorities to the retained data, where the objective pursued by that access, in the context of fighting crime, is not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, where access is not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority, and where there is no requirement that the data concerned should be retained within the European Union.

 

[ leggi]

European Court of Justice, Second Chamber, case C-398/15, 9.3.2017
(Right to be forgotten)

The Court considers that there is no right to be forgotten in respect of personal data in the companies register. However, upon expiry of a sufficiently long period after dissolution of the company concerned, Member States may provide for restricted access to such data by third parties in exceptional cases

[ leggi]

European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Google Spain SL and Google Inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, May 13th, 2014
(Personal data)

The European Court of Justice said Google must delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from its results when a member of the public requests it, recognising a “right to be forgotten”.

[ leggi]

------------------------------------------


Consulta anche i contributi in "Note, commenti e rassegne"