Latest news with #MaryRoseGearty
The Journal
a day ago
- Business
- The Journal
TikTok given permission to challenge €530m fine over data transfers to China
SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the 'penal' €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site in May , for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530 million fine, the censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court today, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of 30 April 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court today on an ex-parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Advertisement In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are 'joint controllers' for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is 'the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision'. Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of 'administrative' fines of €485M and €45M 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim that the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution'. 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property,' TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
RTÉ News
a day ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
TikTok granted permission to challenge €530m DPC fine
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530M fine, the April 30 censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court today, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court today on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision". Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485M and €45M "constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal". TikTok contends that "even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution". Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines "cannot be said to be of a limited nature". TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that "in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". The applicants further claim that the fine "constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution". "The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
The High Court has granted social media giant TikTok permission to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the 'penal' €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530 million fine, the April 30th censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. On Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. READ MORE The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30th, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on Tuesday on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are 'joint controllers' for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is 'the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision'. Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of 'administrative' fines of €485 million and €45 million 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim that the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution'. 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property,' TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to mount a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530m fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530m fine, the April 30 censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court on Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made its decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but adds TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision". Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485m and €45m 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution". 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
The Journal
12-05-2025
- The Journal
Dublin teen accused of assaulting Polish man granted judicial review after three-year case delay
A DUBLIN TEENAGER accused of violent disorder and assault causing harm when he was 15 has been granted permission by the High Court to pursue a judicial review in a bid to halt his prosecution due to a reported three-year delay in the case. The teen ended up before the Circuit Criminal Court after he was deemed unsuitable for juvenile diversion in April 2024, because he had, by then, turned 17. The teenager, who cannot be named, is accused of the offences in Dublin in February 2022 along with five co-accused teens, who got into an altercation with a Polish man who rebuked a group of teenagers for allegedly throwing eggs at a homeless man. The teen was 15 at the time of the alleged offences and is now an 18-year-old. He denied the allegations when interviewed by gardaí a month after the alleged incident. At the High Court today, in applying for a judicial review, his lawyers argued for a hearing to injunct his prosecution at Dublin Circuit Court due to a purported delay in the prosecution of children. In papers lodged at the High Court, it is alleged that a Polish man was talking with a homeless man on Henry Street in Dublin 1 in February 2022, when an egg landed near the homeless man, who then walked away. Advertisement It is alleged that the Polish man noticed eight or ten young males nearby, one of whom had an egg in his hand and that he went up to the tallest of the group, patted him on the head and said: 'Don't throw eggs at homeless people, you little c***.' It is alleged that several teens then kicked and punched the man and forced him to the ground. When he got up, he was further assaulted until a security guard dragged him into a nearby chemist for safety. The teen was allegedly identified on CCTV by gardaí and presented himself for voluntary interview and admitted his presence at the scene at around 7pm on the night of February 22, 2022, but denied any wrongdoing. On April 12, 2024, the teen was deemed unsuitable for juvenile diversion, as he was 17. He was sent forward for trial to the Circuit Court. In papers submitted to the High Court, lawyers for the teenager cite a Supreme Court ruling that said 'it is undoubtedly in the interests of children and society as a whole that young offenders should be able to avail of the facilities of the juvenile diversion programme, and so far as possible, to allow for early intervention with young offenders with a view to maximising the opportunity for rehabilitation'. 'These aims cannot be achieved if there is avoidable delay in the persecution of young offenders,' the Supreme Court judgment reads. At the High Court today, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted leave to appeal, stating there were 'certainly arguable grounds' for review. The teenager is due for arraignment later this month in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
