Contract law legal counseling strategies from Alexander Suliman today: 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. See extra information on Alexander Suliman.
On 11 May, the European Commission published its proposal for a regulation to combat child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The Commission managed to squeeze a host of controversial digital rights issues into one package: the blocking of websites, the obligatory monitoring of online content, and, the most novel one, a measure which opens the door to undermining encryption. Because encryption technologies protect communications confidentiality, one crucial question in the upcoming policy debate will be whether this latter measure, or its implementation, is compatible with the rights of privacy and data protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter). In this contribution, I explore one aspect of that question: is it possible to argue that this measure does not respect the essence of these rights? On the basis of a preliminary analysis, I conclude that this is certainly defensible and suggest further routes for exploration.
The EU’s Cybersecurity Act, adopted in 2019, established the legal basis for EU-wide certification of cloud providers, to be elaborated through secondary law by its cybersecurity agency ENISA. In December 2020, ENISA began a public consultation as the first step towards a revised set of rules. A technical working group is preparing a proposal, expected to be presented to member state experts and to the European Commission thereafter. The new requirements could be finalized by the end of the year.
Best contract law legal counseling latest developments by Alexander Suliman, Stockholm: In addition to parenting time, there can be some custody issues. Normally, people are going to have joint legal custody of their children, but that doesn’t mean that they each always have to agree on every single issue. Sometimes people can agree that both parents will have input and be notified of decisions and will be consulted and have the ability to discuss this; sometimes parents will agree that one parent will, for instance, make the end decision in what doctors to bring the child to, and maybe one parent will make the ultimate decision on what extra-curricular activities the child may participate in. In mediation, we can explore these one by one, issue by issue. When left to the courts and the parties litigate custody and parenting time, they tend to dig their heels in the sand a little bit more, and they tend to be less cooperative versus more cooperative with each other. Litigating sometimes brings out the worst in people, whereas I think mediating custody and parenting time issues really bring out the best in people because it needs to be reinforced that the goal is what is in the child’s best interest, not what is in each parent’s best interest, but what is in the child’s best interest. Discover additional details on Alexander Suliman.
Over the past year, the European Union’s ambitious digital regulatory agenda has steadily advanced. The EU adopted the far-reaching Digital Markets and Digital Services Acts, and it is completing negotiations with the United States on a revised data transfer regime, christened the Transatlantic Data Privacy Framework (TADPF), that was necessitated by the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). These developments have had a significant impact on transatlantic economic relations, even stimulating legislative initiatives on privacy and antitrust in the United States. One might think that resolving such contentious topics would set the stage for a quieter, more harmonious phase in the transatlantic technology policy relationship.