The European Union’s top court has backed France’s decision to enforce strict age-verification rules on adult websites, marking a major step in regulating online content access. The ruling supports efforts to protect minors from exposure to pornography by requiring stronger digital identity checks. While supporters say the move is necessary for online safety, critics argue it raises privacy concerns and could reshape how internet platforms operate across Europe.


France Wins EU Backing For Strict Porn Site Age Verification Rules 

The European Commission was wrong to redact details of multi-billion-euro deals it struck to secure Covid vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic, an EU court said on Wednesday.

The commission failed to show how divulging indemnification details would harm the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical groups supplying the vaccines, the EU General Court ruled.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-calls-kamala-harris-a-potential-president-candidate-for-united-states-741569">Biden calls Kamala Harris a potential 'president' candidate for United States</a>

It also failed a "public interest" test by keeping secret the names of the EU officials involved, the court said.

The ruling hands a victory to EU lawmakers and individuals who had requested the details from 2.7 billion euros' ($2.95 billion)) worth of Covid vaccine purchase agreements the commission had negotiated in 2020-2021.

The commission -- run by President Ursula von der Leyen, who is in trouble separately for allegedly keeping secret and deleting text messages with the boss of Pfizer over vaccine purchases -- had offered only redacted versions of the contracts it had signed.

It argued that releasing the blacked-out details would jeopardise the commercial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies, notably where it came to liability and indemnification in the event of vaccine defects.

The commission had also argued that it needed to keep private the identities and words used by members of its team who negotiated the deals.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/over-60-palestinians-killed-in-israeli-airstrikes-across-gaza-strip-741572">Over 60 Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes across Gaza Strip</a>

But the EU court upheld "in part" the lawsuits lodged by those seeking access to those details "and annuls the Commission's decisions in so far as they contain irregularities".

"The Commission did not demonstrate that wider access to those clauses would actually undermine the commercial interests of those undertakings," it said.

Also, it found that those behind the lawsuit had demonstrated the public interest of having access to the personal details of the commission's vaccine-negotiating team.

"It was only by having the names, surnames and details of the professional or institutional role of the members of the team in question that they could have ascertained whether or not the members of that team had a conflict of interests," the court said.

The commission has until late September to lodge an appeal before the European Court of Justice if it wants to challenge the ruling of the General Court.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The European Commission was wrong to redact details of multi-billion-euro deals it struck to secure Covid vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic, an EU court said on Wednesday.

The European Commission was wrong to redact details of multi-billion-euro deals it struck to secure Covid vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic, an EU court said on Wednesday. The commission failed to show how divulging indemnification details would harm the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical groups supplying the vaccines, the EU General Court ruled. Also read: Biden calls Kamala Harris a potential 'president' candidate for United States It also failed a "public interest" test by keeping secret the names of the EU officials involved, the court said. The ruling hands a victory to EU lawmakers and individuals who had requested the details from 2.7 billion euros' ($2.95 billion)) worth of Covid vaccine purchase agreements the commission had negotiated in 2020-2021. The commission -- run by President Ursula von der Leyen, who is in trouble separately for allegedly keeping secret and deleting text messages with the boss of Pfizer over vaccine purchases -- had offered only redacted versions of the contracts it had signed. It argued that releasing the blacked-out details would jeopardise the commercial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies, notably where it came to liability and indemnification in the event of vaccine defects. The commission had also argued that it needed to keep private the identities and words used by members of its team who negotiated the deals. Also read: Over 60 Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes across Gaza Strip But the EU court upheld "in part" the lawsuits lodged by those seeking access to those details "and annuls the Commission's decisions in so far as they contain irregularities". "The Commission did not demonstrate that wider access to those clauses would actually undermine the commercial interests of those undertakings," it said. Also, it found that those behind the lawsuit had demonstrated the public interest of having access to the personal details of the commission's vaccine-negotiating team. "It was only by having the names, surnames and details of the professional or institutional role of the members of the team in question that they could have ascertained whether or not the members of that team had a conflict of interests," the court said. The commission has until late September to lodge an appeal before the European Court of Justice if it wants to challenge the ruling of the General Court. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

EU court: Commission failed to disclose enough information on Covid vaccine deals

EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, has ruled in favour of Lionel Messi over his name as a trademark.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/lionel-messi-from-a-napkin-deal-to-the-release-clause-327526" hreflang="en">Lionel Messi: From a napkin deal to the 'release clause'!</a>

According to the ruling, Messi can register his name as a trademark. The court also dismissed an appeal from Spanish cycling company Massi and the EU's intellectual property office, EUIPO.

IN PICS:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/messi-ronaldo-and-worlds-highest-paid-football-players-2020-327701" hreflang="en">Messi, Ronaldo and...: World’s Highest-Paid Football Players 2020</a>

Barcelona star Lionel Messi was first to apply to trademark his surname as a sportswear brand in 2011. However, the player faced troubles when the cycling company (Massi) argued that the similarity between their logos would cause confusion.

As per the ECJ, the star player's reputation could be taken into account when weighing up whether the public would be able to tell the difference between the two brands. The EU court stood by its ruling in 2018.&nbsp;

In 2018, the court said: "The football player's fame counteracts the visual and phonetic similarities" with Massi.

"Mr Messi is, in fact, a well-known public figure who can be seen on television and who is regularly discussed on television or on the radio," the court said.

EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, has ruled in favour of Lionel Messi over his name as a trademark. Also read: Lionel Messi: From a napkin deal to the 'release clause'!

EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, has ruled in favour of Lionel Messi over his name as a trademark. Also read: Lionel Messi: From a napkin deal to the 'release clause'! According to the ruling, Messi can register his name as a trademark. The court also dismissed an appeal from Spanish cycling company Massi and the EU's intellectual property office, EUIPO. IN PICS: Messi, Ronaldo and...: World’s Highest-Paid Football Players 2020 Barcelona star Lionel Messi was first to apply to trademark his surname as a sportswear brand in 2011. However, the player faced troubles when the cycling company (Massi) argued that the similarity between their logos would cause confusion. As per the ECJ, the star player's reputation could be taken into account when weighing up whether the public would be able to tell the difference between the two brands. The EU court stood by its ruling in 2018. In 2018, the court said: "The football player's fame counteracts the visual and phonetic similarities" with Massi. "Mr Messi is, in fact, a well-known public figure who can be seen on television and who is regularly discussed on television or on the radio," the court said.

Massi or Messi? EU court rules in favour of Lionel Messi over trademark issue

The European Court of Justice ruled Monday that Britain could halt withdrawal from the EU without seeking the approval of fellow member states, in a victory for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/thousands-protest-through-london-in-support-of-brexit-ahead-of-crucial-vote-182758">anti-Brexit campaigners</a>.

"The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU," the European Court of Justice said, in response to a suit from a group of Scottish politicians.

"Such a revocation, decided in accordance with its own national constitutional requirements, would have the effect that the United Kingdom remains in the EU under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member State," the court ruled.

Following a 2016 referendum, Britain declared its intention to quit the European Union on March 29 last year, triggering the "Article 50" EU treaty procedure that would see it definitively leave two years later, on the same date next year.

British Prime Minister Theresa May's government insists it has no intention of halting the process and has agreed a draft withdrawal agreement with the 27 remaining member states.

The withdrawal agreement is expected to go before the British parliament for approval on Tuesday.

If, as appears likely, it is rejected it would raise fears that Britain could crash out of the union on March 29 without a deal or that it could revoke or postpone Brexit in order to hold another referendum.

The court's ruling will be welcomed by campaigners for a second referendum, but May's government insists it has no intention of reversing course, whatever the court in Luxembourg might say.

"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly," Environment Secretary Michael Gove, an influential cabinet Brexiteer, told BBC radio.

"This case is all very well but it doesn't alter either the result of the referendum or the clear intention of the government to leave.

"It's the intent of the government to honour that referendum mandate."

The European Court of Justice ruled Monday that Britain could halt withdrawal from the EU without seeking the approval of fellow member states, in a victory for anti-Brexit campaigners.

The European Court of Justice ruled Monday that Britain could halt withdrawal from the EU without seeking the approval of fellow member states, in a victory for anti-Brexit campaigners. "The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU," the European Court of Justice said, in response to a suit from a group of Scottish politicians. "Such a revocation, decided in accordance with its own national constitutional requirements, would have the effect that the United Kingdom remains in the EU under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member State," the court ruled. Following a 2016 referendum, Britain declared its intention to quit the European Union on March 29 last year, triggering the "Article 50" EU treaty procedure that would see it definitively leave two years later, on the same date next year. British Prime Minister Theresa May's government insists it has no intention of halting the process and has agreed a draft withdrawal agreement with the 27 remaining member states. The withdrawal agreement is expected to go before the British parliament for approval on Tuesday. If, as appears likely, it is rejected it would raise fears that Britain could crash out of the union on March 29 without a deal or that it could revoke or postpone Brexit in order to hold another referendum. The court's ruling will be welcomed by campaigners for a second referendum, but May's government insists it has no intention of reversing course, whatever the court in Luxembourg might say. "We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly," Environment Secretary Michael Gove, an influential cabinet Brexiteer, told BBC radio. "This case is all very well but it doesn't alter either the result of the referendum or the clear intention of the government to leave. "It's the intent of the government to honour that referendum mandate."

EU Court rules Britain can revoke Brexit unilaterally

Facebook has moved to block referral of an Irish privacy case to Europe's top court, a lawyer for the U.S. tech giant said on Monday, seeking to avoid a potential ban on the legal instrument it uses to transfer users' data to the United States.

The case, taken by privacy activist Max Schrems, is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance.

The Irish High Court this month ordered the case to be referred to the EU's top court for a detailed assessment of whether the methods used for data transfers - including standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield agreement - were legal.

A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the legal arrangements could cause major headaches for thousands of firms, which make millions of these transfers every day.

The lawyer, Paul Gallagher, told the Irish High Court on Monday that Facebook was seeking a stay on the court's referral of the case to the ECJ to give the Irish Supreme Court time to decide if it would hear an appeal.

"The ideal thing we would be looking for would be a stay pending a determination by the Supreme Court," Gallagher told the court, adding that Facebook would seek an accelerated referral to the Supreme Court so it would take days, not months.

The case was taken in Ireland, the location of Facebook's headquarters for most markets outside the United States.

The judge earlier said the case raised well-founded concerns that there is an absence of an effective remedy in U.S. law compatible with EU legal requirements.

The case is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance

Facebook has moved to block referral of an Irish privacy case to Europe's top court, a lawyer for the U.S. tech giant said on Monday, seeking to avoid a potential ban on the legal instrument it uses to transfer users' data to the United States. The case, taken by privacy activist Max Schrems, is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance. The Irish High Court this month ordered the case to be referred to the EU's top court for a detailed assessment of whether the methods used for data transfers - including standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield agreement - were legal. A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the legal arrangements could cause major headaches for thousands of firms, which make millions of these transfers every day. The lawyer, Paul Gallagher, told the Irish High Court on Monday that Facebook was seeking a stay on the court's referral of the case to the ECJ to give the Irish Supreme Court time to decide if it would hear an appeal. "The ideal thing we would be looking for would be a stay pending a determination by the Supreme Court," Gallagher told the court, adding that Facebook would seek an accelerated referral to the Supreme Court so it would take days, not months. The case was taken in Ireland, the location of Facebook's headquarters for most markets outside the United States. The judge earlier said the case raised well-founded concerns that there is an absence of an effective remedy in U.S. law compatible with EU legal requirements.

Facebook seeks to block referral of privacy case to EU's top court

eu-court

Eu Court, News on Eu Court, stories on Eu Court, articles on Eu Court, Eu Court stories at Wion, Eu Court news, Eu Court latest news

eu court

France Wins EU Backing For Strict Porn Site Age Verification Rules

EU court: Commission failed to disclose enough information on Covid vaccine deals

Massi or Messi? EU court rules in favour of Lionel Messi over trademark issue

EU Court rules Britain can revoke Brexit unilaterally

Facebook seeks to block referral of privacy case to EU's top court