Statements (53)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
legal scholars
ongoing privacy debates for future litigation |
| gptkbp:case_number |
privacy vs. state interest
appealed to ECHR involves surveillance issues no. 1/2015 |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
unanimous decision
influenced public policy balancing rights reaffirmed privacy rights on EU law upheld privacy rights. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
landmark ruling
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Danish privacy laws
affects member states |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:European_Court_of_Human_Rights
17 judges |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
violation of Article 8
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
Judge X
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
strengthened privacy protections
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
A v. Denmark
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
ECHR 2017
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
January 24, 2017
on Danish law |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
European Court's authority
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
data protection laws |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:Article_8_of_ECHR
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
right to privacy
right to respect for private life |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
revised policies
ruling in favor of A |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
proportionality
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
by human rights organizations
lawyers for A |
| gptkbp:material |
involves personal data
|
| gptkbp:notable_interview |
gptkb:A
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
compensation awarded
|
| gptkbp:plot_summary |
case about privacy infringement
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
influenced future cases
influenced GDPR discussions |
| gptkbp:public_interest |
gptkb:media_coverage
|
| gptkbp:public_perception |
Judge Y
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:B_v._Denmark
|
| gptkbp:responds_to |
gptkb:Denmark
|
| gptkbp:significance |
impact on privacy rights
set a standard |
| gptkbp:sound |
September 2016
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:2016
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_Denmark
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|