LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Pöysti, Tuomas
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Tuomas Pöysti examines an important decision by the European Court of Human Rights that must include the investigation of digital evidence.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 24 Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2008 in C-275/06 Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU, ECR [2008] I-271.
    • 25 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37-47. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10-19.
    • 26 Judgment of the European Court of Justice in C275/06 Promusicae, paras 60 - 70.
    • 27 The European Court of Justice has extended this apology for abstract writing style to the EC Personal Data Directive 95/46/EC, see the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 7 May 2009 in Case C-553/07 College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M. E. E. Rijkeboer, not yet reported in ECR.
    • 28 ECHR judgment in the case of K.U. v Finland, 49 and also the ECHR judgment in the case of Stubbings and Others v the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-IV.
    • 33 ECHR judgments in the cases of K.U. v Finland, 42 and Airey v Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 32.
    • 34 ECHR judgments in the cases of X and Y v the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no 91, §§ 23-24 and 27 and M.C. v Bulgaria, n0 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII.
    • 35 K.U. v Finland, 43 and 44.
    • 36 In Germany the principle of last resort, the Minju Wang, Translation and Introduction to the Electronic Signatures Law of China, Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 2 (2005) 79 - 85, and Electronic Transactions Act 1998 (Singapore).
    • 8 Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth).
    • 9 The state level Acts are: Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW); Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (SA); Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Tas); Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (ACT); Electronic Transactions Act 2003 (WA); Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 (Vic); Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2000 (Qld); Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000 (NT). Note that since the State legislation is essentially the same as the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), the discussion in this article is confined to the provisions of the latter legislation.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article