Valsts policijas Rigas regiona parvaldes Kartibas policijas parvalde v Rigas pašvaldibas SIA 'Rigas satiksme'

European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling in which it decided that of Directive (EC) 95-46 should be interpreted as not imposing the obligation to disclose personal data to a third party in order to enable him to bring an action for damages before a civil court for harm caused by the person concerned by the protection of that data. However, art 7(f) of that directive did not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law.

R (on the application of Merida Oil Traders Ltd) v Central Criminal Court and others

Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Divisional Court quashed production and detention orders made against the claimants, and declared that of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 could not lawfully be used to seize cheques. The requirements of s 346(4) of the Act for the making of the production orders had not been met and, although the lawfulness of the seizure of the cheques did not depend on lawful production orders, s 294 of the Act had not authorised the seizure, as the procedure adopted had not been lawfully available.

National Crime Agency v N and another

Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant National Crime Agency's appeal against the judge's orders, granting the first respondent interim declaratory and mandatory interim injunctive relief. The had not ousted the judge's jurisdiction to make the orders, although the statutory consent regime was highly relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion. However, on the facts, no declaration should have been made, which, on the judge's own reasoning, meant that it had been inappropriate to grant a mandatory interim injunction.

Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Practice Interlocutory proceedings. The Queen's Bench Division held that the provisions of s32(4) of the Data Protection Act 1988, which provided in certain circumstances for an automatic stay of proceedings in respect of journalistic materials, was neither inconsistent or incompatible with art9 of Directive (EC)95-46 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The parliamentary purpose was reflected in the wording of s32(4) of the Act, which provided for a pro tanto stay.

Adams v Crown Prosecution Service

Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the defendant, subject to a confiscation order, against a decision to refuse to issue him with a certificate of inadequacy under of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The court held that the judge had made no error of law in accepting the case of the Crown Prosecution Service in regard to the evidence of the assets of the defendant and his wife.

Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Manni

European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling in which it decided that art 6(1)(e), art 12(b) and sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of of Directive (EC) 95-46, read in conjunction with art 3 of First , had be interpreted as meaning that, as EU law currently stood, it was for the member states to determine whether the natural persons referred to in art 2(1)(d) and (j) of that directive could apply to the authority responsible for keeping the register to determine, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, if it was exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, on the expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company concerned, access to personal data relating to them, entered in that register, to third parties who could demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data.

Candy v Holyoake and others

Pleading Striking out. The Queen's Bench Division found that the first three defendants had breached their duties of disclosure, but that it was not appropriate to strike out their defences and costs orders in the claimant's favour would be made. Further, although the claimant's response to the their CPR Pt 18 request did answer the first three defendants' questions to some extent, it was better to strike out that response and order a further one.

ITV Broadcasting Ltd and other companies v TVCatchup Ltd (in administration) and other companies

European Union Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that of Directive (EC) 2001-29 and specifically the concept of 'access to cable of broadcasting services', should be interpreted as not covering, and not permitting, national legislation which provided that copyright was not infringed in the case of the immediate retransmission by cable, including, where relevant, via the internet, in the area of initial broadcast, of works broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations.

Mayer v European Food Safety Authority

European Union Access to information. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's action brought under art 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, challenging the decisions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), first, dismissing the applicant's request to extend her secondment as a national expert at EFSA and, second, refusing her request for access to documents held by EFSA. The General court held that the heads of claim sought by the applicant in relation to those two issues were inadmissible.

Pemberton Greenish LLP v Henry

Solicitor Dishonesty. The Queen's Bench Division ruled, in respect of a subrogated claim brought by the claimant firm of solicitors (on behalf of its insurer), that, although the defendant, who had acted as a consultant solicitor for the claimant, had committed various breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, , in respect of legal services provided to joint clients in relation to the provision of a mortgage on an investment property (the transaction), there was no sufficiently cogent evidence that the claimant's losses, following the discovery of a fraud concerning the transaction, had been caused as a result of the dishonest acts or omissions of the defendant. The court held that the breaches were not evidence of dishonesty by the defendant, but had been due to her desire to complete the transaction as swiftly as possible.