News

CJE: JEHOVAH WITNESSES MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION

12/07/2018

With the decision of July 10, in case C-25/17, the Court of Justice has expressed itself on the protection of personal data in the context of door-to-door preaching by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Community.

 

On September 17, 2013, the Finnish Data Protection Commission (tietosuojalautakunta) prohibited the religious community of Jehovah’s Witnesses to collect or process personal data, as part of door-to-door preaching, unless the requirements of the relevant Finnish legislation are met to the processing of such data.

In the context of the proceedings initiated by the Finnish Data Protection Supervisor (tietosuojavaltuutettu) following the abovementioned refusal, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus) referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on whether the religious community is obliged to comply with Community legislation on the protection of personal data in the exercise of door-to-door preaching.

In its recent ruling, the Court of Justice held, first, that the activity of door-to-door preaching of members of the Jehovah’s Witness Community does not constitute an exclusively personal or domestic activity and, therefore, does not fall within the exceptions provided for by EU law on the protection of personal data.

The Court also clarified that the rules on the protection of personal data apply to the manual processing of data only where they are stored in a file. In this respect, the Court concluded that ‘the notion of ‘file’ includes any set of personal data collected during a door-to-door preaching activity and containing names, addresses and other information relating to the persons contacted door-to-door, since such data are structured according to specific criteria which allow, in practice, for easy retrieval for subsequent use’.

Furthermore, the Court also clarified that the rules on personal data protection apply to the manual processing of data only if they are stored in an archive. In this regard, the Court concluded that “the notion of «filing system» covers a set of personal data collected in the course of door-to-door preaching activity, consisting of the names and addresses and other information concerning the persons contacted, if such data is structured according to specific criteria which, in practice, enable it to be easily retrieved for subsequent use“.

Finally, the Court addressed the question of who can, in the specific case in question, be considered as a controller of personal data. The CJU, having recalled that the notion of ‘controller’ may cover several actors involved in the processing, each of whom must therefore be subject to the rules of Union law on the personal data protection, therefore concluded that Union law on the protection of personal data “allows a religious community to be considered, together with his preacher members, as controller for the processing of personal data carried out by them in the course of a door-to-door preaching activity organized, coordinated and encouraged by that community, without it being necessary for that community to have access to that data or for it to be demonstrated that it has given its members written instructions or directions in relation to those processing operations”.

For the full text of the judgment:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=203822&mode=lst&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=IT&cid=509006


ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE FILE OF A FINANCIAL SUPERVISION AUTHORITY IS NOT NECESSARILY CONFIDENTIAL

03/07/2018

The ECJ makes clear which information in the file of a financial supervision authority are confidential, in the light of the Directive 2004/39/EC.

 

Mr Ewald Baumeister is one of the investors who suffered loss due to the activities of the German company Phoenix Kapitaldienst, whose business model took the form of a Ponzi scheme. Insolvency proceedings having been initiated against Phoenix in the course of 2005 that company has been dissolved and is now in judicial liquidation. Mr Baumeister submitted to the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, German a request for access to certain documents concerning Phoenix, as part of its supervision of Phoenix. Since the Bundesanstalt refused to grant him access to those documents, Mr Baumeister brought proceedings before the German courts.

The Federal Administrative Court, Germany against that background asks the Court of Justice to clarify the scope of the directive on markets in financial instruments, which provides that the competent authorities are subject to an obligation of professional secrecy and may not, other than in the situations exhaustively listed in the directive, disclose confidential information that they have received. In the judgment issued on June 19, 2018 the Court holds, first, that all information relating to the supervised

undertaking and communicated by it to the competent authority, and all statements of that authority in its supervision file, including its correspondence with other bodies, does not constitute, unconditionally, confidential information that is covered, consequently, by the obligation to maintain professional secrecy. Information held by the competent authorities (i) which is not public and (ii) the disclosure of which is likely to affect adversely the interests of the natural or legal person who provided that information or of third parties, or the proper functioning of the system for monitoring the activities of investment firms established by the directive must be so classified.

The Court then adds that information that could constitute business secrets loses, generally, its secret nature when it is at least five years old. Exceptionally, that may not be the case where party relying on its secrecy shows that, despite its age, that information still constitutes an essential element of its commercial position or that of interested third parties. The Court observes however that such considerations have no bearing in relation to information the confidentiality of which might be justified for reasons other than the importance of that information with respect to the commercial position of the undertakings concerned, such as information relating to prudential supervision methodology and strategy. Last, the Court further states that the Member States remain free to decide to extend the protection against disclosure to the entire contents of the supervision files of the competent authorities or, conversely, to permit access to information that is in the possession of the competent authorities which is not confidential information within the meaning of the directive.


PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL THE NEW LEGISLATIVE DECREE ON KNOW HOW

13/06/2018

On June 7, 2018 the Legislative Decree no. 63 of May 11, 2018, issued in implementation of EU Directive 2016/943 on the protection of confidential know-how and confidential business information against the unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. The new legislation will come into effect starting from June 22, 2018.

 

The decree in question introduces amendments – even substantial ones – to several provisions of the Italian Code of Industrial Property (articles 1, 98, 99, 124, 126, 132) and of the Italian Criminal Code (articles 388 and 623) and introduces a new article (121ter) to the Italian Code of Industrial Property (hereinafter also “c.p.i.”). Here below the most relevant news:

 

– the extension of the protection of know-how, obtained through the substitution of the terms “confidential company information” with the more general expression “trade secrets”;

– the introduction of two new paragraphs (1bis and 1ter) to art. 99 of c.p.i.: the offence is now extended to those who, at the time of acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets, were aware (or should have been) of the fact that the trade secrets were obtained from a third party who used them or he revealed unlawfully;

– the introduction of art. 121ter of c.p.i., which enables the judge – upon request of the party – to prevent the subjects who have access to the documents of the case (parties, attorneys, technical consultants, witnesses, etc.) from using disclosing the trade secrets object of the proceedings;

– the introduction of three new paragraphs (6bis, 6ter and 6quater) to art. 124 of c.p.i. which, on the one hand, put in writing the criteria that the judge must follow when ordering the corrective remedies and the civil penalties provided for by art. 124 (inhibitory, withdrawal from the market, destruction, etc.); on the other hand, they introduce the possibility – when specific conditions occur – to implement alternative measures to the mentioned ones, such as the payment of an indemnity which is appropriate to the prejudice suffered by the owner of the know-how;

– the extension of the crime referred to in art. 388 of the Italian Criminal Code, with the provision that even those who elude the execution of an injunction order that protects trade secrets are liable for the crime of fraudulent non-execution of an order of the judge;

– the reformulation of art. 623 of the Italian Criminal Code and the introduction, among the punishable conduct, of the abusive acquisition, disclosure and use of trade secrets.


LGV AVVOCATI IN THE CHAMBER AND PARTNERS GUIDE FOR PATENT LITIGATION 2018

05/06/2018

The lawyers Goglia, Thiem and Villa assisted in the editing of the Chambers and Partners Guide 2018 for Patent Litigation Law and Practice with special reference to Italian experience in the field

 

Chambers and Partners identifies and ranks the most outstanding law firms and lawyers in over 180 jurisdictions throughout the world. This year LGV Avvocati, being one of the most prominent and exceptional experts in the area, was honored to assist in the preparation of 2018 Guide of Chamber for Patent Litigation and Practice with particular reference to Italy.

The whole version of the guide can be accessed following this link:

https://practiceguides.chambersandpartners.com/practice-guides/comparison/342/1366/2938-2939-2940-2941-2942-2943-2944-2945-2946-2947


LEADERS LEAGUE 2018: LGV CLASSIFIED AS “LEADING” LAW FIRM FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and TMT

22/05/2018

LGV confirms its position as a leading law firm in the field of copyright, and is ranked in the Technologies, internet & telecommunications category.

 

The Leaders League 2018 guide, the French firm that deals with rating professional firms in various national contexts, considers the high quality of service offered by the firm in relation to copyright and TMT, naming, for the second consecutive year, LGV as the leading law firm in the Intellectual Property category. LGV also achieved ranking, also as the leading firm, in the TMT category.

LGV, once again, has achieved a high position in a prestigious legal ranking, thus confirming the presence and influence of the firm in the international context and its role of relevance in an increasingly competitive global market.

For more details see: https://www.leadersleague.com/en/rankings/search?company=Lgv+Avocati