• iLinc Best Practice Sharing Event


  • IViR hosted iLinc Best Practices Event

    Representatives from 16 universities joined law students and start ups to discuss their needs, experiences and plans for providing legal advice to tech start-ups. After London, this was the second Best Practices event of the European Network of ICT Law Incubators in which IViR is a core partner.

    On the first day at Freedomlab, students, alumni and the start ups and, presented the Amsterdam Clinic in action, moderated by Veronic Sijstermans, Clinic coordinator. What is it students enrolled in the LLM Information Law programmes’ Clinic do for start ups, why is it valuable for start-ups and the wider local economy? Students from BLIP Clinic, the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic, introduced a number of innovative projects, like self help notice and takedown tools for citizens. Professor Jonathan Askin, founder of BLIP Clinic, moderated the Transatlantic Exchange hangout session, which also featured debate on the importance of law students to work with students of other disciplines relevant to start ups, notably technology programmes, as happens between BLIP and MIT.  In a session with professor Tony Luppino  (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law) we explored possibilities for network collaborations between iLinc and the lawschools united in EShiplaw, the American Entrepeneurship law network.

    The second day, the iLinc core partners reported on the progress they make in identifying what legal issues affect start ups most, what kind of services law students can offer them, how links can be established between practical legal training and academic teaching and research and what a facilitating platform will offer. In breakout sessions, participants dug into ways to overcome the various institutional, funding and academic challenges that the active network partners encounter in organizing legal incubators. The myriad possibilities that were identified will inform the further work of iLinc.

    More about the iLinc project can be found here.

    iLinc network partners at the Best Practices Event hosted by IViR, 30-31 October 2014. Photograph: Rosanne Alderliefste


Ronan Fahy


Media coverage of elections: the legal framework in Europe

Apa, E.

Bassini, M.

Bruna, A.

Cabrera Blázquez, F.

Cunningham, I.

Etteldorf, C.

Fahy, R.

Goldberg, D.

Granchet, A.

Klimkiewicz, B.

Richter, A.

Rozendaal, M.

IRIS Special, 2017-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, ISBN: 9789287184870


The Chilling Effect of Liability for Online Reader Comments

Fahy, R.

This article assesses how the European Court of Human Rights has responded to the argument that holding online news media liable for reader comments has a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The article demonstrates how the Court first responded by dismissing the argument, and focused on the apparent lack of evidence for any such chilling effect. The article then argues that the Court has moved away from its initial rejection, and now accepts that a potential chilling effect, even without evidence, is integral to deciding whether online news media should be liable for reader comments. Finally, the article argues that this latter view is consistent with the Court’s precedent in other areas of freedom of expression law where a similar chilling effect may also arise.


An Assessment of the Commission's Proposal on Privacy and Electronic Communications

Fahy, R.

Irion, K.

Rozendaal, M.

van Hoboken, J.

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, appraises the European Commission’s proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation. The study assesses whether the proposal would ensure that the right to the protection of personal data, the right to respect for private life and communications, and related rights enjoy a high standard of protection. The study also highlights the proposal’s potential benefits and drawbacks more generally.


Annotatie bij Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens 20 september 2016 (Van Beukering & Het Parool / Nederland)

de Beer, K.

Fahy, R.

De zaak Van Beukering en Het Parool B.V. t. Nederland betreft de publicatie van een portret zonder toestemming van de geportretteerde. Het Parool had een artikel geplaatst over het strafproces inzake een rapper die werd verdacht van het plegen van een aantal misdrijven. Bij het artikel had Parool een foto geplaatst van de rapper. De foto was afkomstig uit een documentaire over de rapper “R.P.,” waar hij een aantal jaar eerder aan had meegewerkt. De documentaire werd in het artikel uitvoerig besproken. De documentaire stond op het moment van publicatie nog online. Het gaat in deze zaak om de vraag of Het Parool onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld door de foto van de rapper te publiceren. Het EHRM overweegt dat een afweging moet worden gemaakt tussen twee fundamentele rechten: het recht op eerbiediging van privéleven (art. 8 EVRM) van de rapper en het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting (art. 10 EVRM) van Het Parool. Het Hof stelt vast dat de Hoge Raad geen onredelijke conclusie heeft getrokken door in dit geval art. 8 EVRM te laten prevaleren. Het Hof verklaart het verzoekschrift van Van Beukering en Het Parool niet-ontvankelijk.


Digital platforms: an analytical framework for identifying and evaluating policy options

Fahy, R.

Gelevert, H.

Nooren, P.

Stokking, H.

van Eijk, N.

van Til, H.

TNO-rapport 2015, R11271. Bijlage bij kamerbrief over toekomstbestendige wetgeving.

Kader om beleidsopties ten aanzien van 'digitale platforms' te analyseren.


Clinical Legal Education: A Review of the Literature

Fahy, R.

van Eechoud, M.

iLINC (ICT Law Incubators Network), September 2015.


Establishing Links to Learning

Fahy, R.

van Eechoud, M.

iLINC (ICT Law Incubators Network), Work Package 3, September 2015.


Political Advertising Bans and Freedom of Expression

Fahy, R.

In Animal Defenders International v UK, the 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television, as applied to an animal rights organisation, did not violate freedom of expression. The Court divided nine votes to eight, with the majority opinion abandoning the Court’s previous ‘strict scrutiny’ review, and laying down a new doctrine for reviewing political advertising bans. This article, first, examines the role the composition of the Grand Chamber played in the outcome of the case. Second, questions the basis of the new doctrine of review. And third, criticises the majority’s treatment of precedent.


More Publications