Quality business public law legal counselling advices with Alexander Suliman: Understanding the regulatory environment applicable to your business is an important consideration. Some of the higher profile regulations you may have heard of include the incoming new Copyright Directive, the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, or the one everyone has heard of, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There’s also a new EU-wide foreign investment controls regulation expected to come into force in 2023 that will impact US companies investing in EU based businesses. Several sectors are heavily regulated in the EU and the rules in place often differ from the US regulations, especially in the fields of healthcare, financial services, chemicals, food, product safety, and consumer information and protection. Ensure that you understand the regulatory environment of new markets that you are entering and monitor your sector’s applicable regulations periodically in order to implement any necessary change in due time. Discover even more info at https://sv.quora.com/profile/Alex-Suliman.

The reason why the European Commission was keen on allowing firms to voluntarily scan material, is that technology firms have already been working on ways to detect CSAM and solicitation for quite some time. Let’s start with a content scanning order on the server. At first sight, a case can be made that such an order should be considered to compromise the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter. The ECJ in Schrems I considered that legislation permitting the public authorities access on a generalised basis to the content of communications compromises the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter (par. 94). Content scanning on the server arguably is a form of “access on a generalised basis”, where it involves an analysis of all communications going through the server connected to a certain app, and forwarding any matches to a designated center. At the same time, the ECHR in Big Brother Watch was more forgiving when it comes to powers of bulk interception of communications, as long as these powers are surrounded with sufficient safeguards (par. 350). Thus, one important point to be explored further, is whether this signals a rift between the two bodies, or that the ECJ will chart its own route when it comes to bulk surveillance.

The European Commission, in a working document, identified cloud services as a “strategic dependency”, expressing concerns that the EU cloud market is led by a few large cloud providers headquartered outside the EU. In July, 2021, France, joined by Germany, Italy, and Spain, submitted a proposal to the ENISA-led working group aimed at generalizing French national requirements across the EU. (Germany has since reserved its position.) It proposed to add four new criteria for companies to qualify as eligible to offer ‘high’ level services, including immunity from foreign law and localization of cloud service operations and data within the EU. Although the EU-level cyber certification requirements currently are conceived as voluntary, they could be made mandatory as the result of the recently-agreed Directive on Measures for a High Common Level of Cybersecurity across the Union (NIS2 Directive).

contract law legal counseling latest developments by Alexander Suliman, Sweden today: We’ll also look to intertwined finances. That takes a next step that has to go to the court process, but if they’re sharing expenses, if there’s a joint bank account, if a vehicle is registered at an address, we’ll look at those things to prove cohabitation. Importantly, cohabitation does not mean that they are living together. We do not have to show that they have a common household. It is not something that is critical in proving cohabitation that they are actually living together. See even more information on Alexander Suliman, Stockholm.

On 24 February 2022, the CJEU issued its first judgment on domestic workers. In case C-389/20, TGSS (Chômage des employés de maison), the CJEU held that the exclusion of this category of workers from access to social security benefits constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of sex, since it affects almost exclusively women. Domestic workers have long constituted an invisible and rather underexplored category of workers within labour law scholarship and policy-making, which has only recently gained some attention in the wake of the adoption of the historic ILO Domestic Workers Convention No. 189 in 2011. Whereas a part of the scholarship has noticed that EU equality law could be used to challenge the long-standing exclusions of domestic workers from national labour law and social security system (see, notably, the contribution of Vera Pavlou, and the work of Nuria Ramos-Martin, Ana Munoz-Ruiz & Niels Jansen in the context of the PSH-Quality project), the issue has never reached the Court of Justice up to now.