Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 4 oktober 2024 (Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond / Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens)

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 4 oktober 2024 (Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond / Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 15, num: 110, pp: 2053-2054, 2025

Abstract

Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door de Rechtbank Amsterdam (Nederland) bij beslissing van 22 september 2022. Bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Rechtmatigheid van de verwerking. Verwerking die noodzakelijk is voor de behartiging van de gerechtvaardigde belangen van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke of van een derde. Begrip ‘gerechtvaardigd belang’. Commercieel belang. Sportbond. Mededeling tegen betaling van de persoonsgegevens van de leden van een sportbond aan sponsoren zonder de toestemming van die leden.

Links

Annotatie_NJ_2025_110

RIS

TY  - CASE
AU  - Dommering, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-06-03
T1  - Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 4 oktober 2024 (Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond / Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens)
JO  - Nederlandse Jurisprudentie
IS  - 15
NV  - 110
SP  - 2053-2054
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hof-van-justitie-van-de-eu-4-oktober-2024-koninklijke-nederlandse-lawn-tennisbond-autoriteit-persoonsgegevens/annotatie_nj_2025_110/
AB  - Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door de Rechtbank Amsterdam (Nederland) bij beslissing van 22 september 2022. Bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Rechtmatigheid van de verwerking. Verwerking die noodzakelijk is voor de behartiging van de gerechtvaardigde belangen van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke of van een derde. Begrip ‘gerechtvaardigd belang’. Commercieel belang. Sportbond. Mededeling tegen betaling van de persoonsgegevens van de leden van een sportbond aan sponsoren zonder de toestemming van die leden.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Access to Justice and LLMs external link

Metikoš, L.

The Digital Constitutionalist, 2025

Abstract

The legal system can be a fortress. While anyone can freely read their country’s laws, much more is needed to grasp the complexity of the legal system. Lawyers train for years to gain the skills to engage with the law. Yet, LLM-based chatbots provide billions of people now with access to this, often almost esoteric, type of knowledge. Though far from perfect, LLMs have nevertheless produced a societal revolution in the provision of legal services and access to justice for years to come.

Links

https://digi-con.org/access-to-justice-and-llms/

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Do AI models dream of dolphins in lake Balaton? external link

Keller, P.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Links

https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2025/05/28/do-ai-models-dream-of-dolphins-in-lake-balaton/

Artificial intelligence, Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?” external link

van Hoboken, J., Radwan, G., Hamann, H., Monjoux, E. & Zeybek, B.

2025

Abstract

This panel investigates the digitalisation - climate action relationship and discusses the response of law and policy to it. Digitalisation is touted as the solution for environmental challenges. The EU policy considers digital infrastructures integral to achieve the European Green Deal’s net-zero goals ("twin transition"). But these create new risks and dependencies as they implicate power dynamics at the intersection of digital economy, geopolitics, security. This panel investigates some of these frictions focusing on two technologies: foundation models and digital twins. For example, foundation models can provide novel climate insights, but they can also transfer bias in context and training data into climate solutions and cement market logics into sustainability efforts. Digital Earth applications (e.g. DestinE), bringing together sensing and computing, can change environmental decision making processes and can have potential uses for disaster prevention, migration management and security. How could the law take account of these dynamics going forward?

Links

https://youtu.be/YWQi2fWIZ8E?si=N7s7fOy2xdpxGZSH

RIS

TY  - SLIDE
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Radwan, G.
AU  - Hamann, H.
AU  - Monjoux, E.
AU  - Zeybek, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-22
T1  - Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?”
UR  - https://youtu.be/YWQi2fWIZ8E?si=N7s7fOy2xdpxGZSH
AB  - This panel investigates the digitalisation - climate action relationship and discusses the response of law and policy to it. Digitalisation is touted as the solution for environmental challenges. The EU policy considers digital infrastructures integral to achieve the European Green Deal’s net-zero goals (\"twin transition\"). But these create new risks and dependencies as they implicate power dynamics at the intersection of digital economy, geopolitics, security. This panel investigates some of these frictions focusing on two technologies: foundation models and digital twins. For example, foundation models can provide novel climate insights, but they can also transfer bias in context and training data into climate solutions and cement market logics into sustainability efforts. Digital Earth applications (e.g. DestinE), bringing together sensing and computing, can change environmental decision making processes and can have potential uses for disaster prevention, migration management and security. How could the law take account of these dynamics going forward?
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Presentation{nokey,
	title = {Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?”},
	author = {van Hoboken, J. and Radwan, G. and Hamann, H. and Monjoux, E. and Zeybek, B.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-22},
	abstract = {This panel investigates the digitalisation - climate action relationship and discusses the response of law and policy to it. Digitalisation is touted as the solution for environmental challenges. The EU policy considers digital infrastructures integral to achieve the European Green Deal’s net-zero goals (\"twin transition\"). But these create new risks and dependencies as they implicate power dynamics at the intersection of digital economy, geopolitics, security. This panel investigates some of these frictions focusing on two technologies: foundation models and digital twins. For example, foundation models can provide novel climate insights, but they can also transfer bias in context and training data into climate solutions and cement market logics into sustainability efforts. Digital Earth applications (e.g. DestinE), bringing together sensing and computing, can change environmental decision making processes and can have potential uses for disaster prevention, migration management and security. How could the law take account of these dynamics going forward?},
}

Save .bib

A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law download

Quintais, J.

Governance of Digital Single Market Actors, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, ISBN: 9781839101472

Abstract

This chapter explores the transformative impact of art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive on the liability of online content-sharing platforms and its potential impact on users’ rights and freedoms. The analysis traces the evolution of EU copyright law to delineate the legal framework for primary and secondary liability of such platforms leading up to the introduction of art. 17. It then examines the new regime, explaining how it reflects a departure from prior rules and constitutes a novel liability paradigm tailored for online content-sharing platforms. The chapter contends that this shift, in line with the Digital Services Act's (DSA) “enhanced responsibility” approach, entails important trade-offs. It presents challenges to legal certainty, given the complexity of art. 17 and its potential overlaps with the DSA. Moreover, the legal design of art. 17 and the DSA may lead to privatised algorithmic content moderation, outsourcing fundamental rights balancing to platforms and users, risking users’ freedom of expression. The Court of Justice's ruling in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council is discussed as illustrative of this shift, to the extent it affirms art. 17's liability design without sufficiently addressing associated fundamental rights risks.

Links

Copyright, liability, Online platforms

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-01
T1  - A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/a-new-liability-paradigm-for-online-platforms-in-eu-copyright-law/9781839101489-chapter7/
DO  - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101489.00015
AB  - This chapter explores the transformative impact of art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive on the liability of online content-sharing platforms and its potential impact on users’ rights and freedoms. The analysis traces the evolution of EU copyright law to delineate the legal framework for primary and secondary liability of such platforms leading up to the introduction of art. 17. It then examines the new regime, explaining how it reflects a departure from prior rules and constitutes a novel liability paradigm tailored for online content-sharing platforms. The chapter contends that this shift, in line with the Digital Services Act\'s (DSA) “enhanced responsibility” approach, entails important trade-offs. It presents challenges to legal certainty, given the complexity of art. 17 and its potential overlaps with the DSA. Moreover, the legal design of art. 17 and the DSA may lead to privatised algorithmic content moderation, outsourcing fundamental rights balancing to platforms and users, risking users’ freedom of expression. The Court of Justice\'s ruling in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council is discussed as illustrative of this shift, to the extent it affirms art. 17\'s liability design without sufficiently addressing associated fundamental rights risks.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - liability
K1  - Online platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101489.00015},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-01},
	abstract = {This chapter explores the transformative impact of art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive on the liability of online content-sharing platforms and its potential impact on users’ rights and freedoms. The analysis traces the evolution of EU copyright law to delineate the legal framework for primary and secondary liability of such platforms leading up to the introduction of art. 17. It then examines the new regime, explaining how it reflects a departure from prior rules and constitutes a novel liability paradigm tailored for online content-sharing platforms. The chapter contends that this shift, in line with the Digital Services Act\'s (DSA) “enhanced responsibility” approach, entails important trade-offs. It presents challenges to legal certainty, given the complexity of art. 17 and its potential overlaps with the DSA. Moreover, the legal design of art. 17 and the DSA may lead to privatised algorithmic content moderation, outsourcing fundamental rights balancing to platforms and users, risking users’ freedom of expression. The Court of Justice\'s ruling in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council is discussed as illustrative of this shift, to the extent it affirms art. 17\'s liability design without sufficiently addressing associated fundamental rights risks.},
	keywords = {Copyright, liability, Online platforms},
}

Save .bib

A Unitary Title for Copyright download

van Eechoud, M.

Q: Bundel ter nagedachtenis aan prof. mr. Antoon Quaedvlieg, deLex, 2025, Amsterdam, ISBN: 9789086921065

Links

Q_hf9

Auteursrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Nieuwheid in het Auteursrecht download

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Q: Bundel ter nagedachtenis aan prof. mr. Antoon Quaedvlieg, deLex, 2025, Amsterdam, ISBN: 9789086921065

Links

Q_ho17

Auteursrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation external link

Metikoš, L. & Domselaar, I. van

2025

Abstract

The advent of opaque assistive AI in courtrooms has raised concerns about the contestability of these systems, and their impact on procedural justice. The right to an explanation under the GDPR and the AI Act could address the inscrutability of judicial AI for litigants. To substantiate this right in the domain of justice, we examine utilitarian, rights-based (including dignitarian and Dworkinian approaches), and relational theories of procedural justice. These theories reveal diverse perspectives on contestation, which can help shape explainability rights in the context of judicial AI. These theories respectively highlight different values of litigant contestation: it has instrumental value in error correction, and intrinsic value in respecting litigants' dignity, either as rational autonomous agents or as socio-relational beings. These insights help us answer three central and practical questions on how the right to an explanation should be operationalized to enable litigant contestation: should explanations be general or specific, to what extent do explanations need to be faithful to the system's actual behavior or merely provide a plausible approximation, and should more interpretable systems be used, even at the cost of accuracy? These questions are not strictly legal or technical in nature, but also rely on normative considerations. The practical operationalization of explainability will therefore differ between different valuations of litigant contestation of judicial AI.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5242905

Artificial intelligence, digital justice, Transparency

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Metikoš, L.
AU  - Domselaar, I. van
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-05
T1  - Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5242905
AB  - The advent of opaque assistive AI in courtrooms has raised concerns about the contestability of these systems, and their impact on procedural justice. The right to an explanation under the GDPR and the AI Act could address the inscrutability of judicial AI for litigants. To substantiate this right in the domain of justice, we examine utilitarian, rights-based (including dignitarian and Dworkinian approaches), and relational theories of procedural justice. These theories reveal diverse perspectives on contestation, which can help shape explainability rights in the context of judicial AI. These theories respectively highlight different values of litigant contestation: it has instrumental value in error correction, and intrinsic value in respecting litigants\' dignity, either as rational autonomous agents or as socio-relational beings. These insights help us answer three central and practical questions on how the right to an explanation should be operationalized to enable litigant contestation: should explanations be general or specific, to what extent do explanations need to be faithful to the system\'s actual behavior or merely provide a plausible approximation, and should more interpretable systems be used, even at the cost of accuracy? These questions are not strictly legal or technical in nature, but also rely on normative considerations. The practical operationalization of explainability will therefore differ between different valuations of litigant contestation of judicial AI.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - digital justice
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation},
	author = {Metikoš, L. and Domselaar, I. van},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-05},
	abstract = {The advent of opaque assistive AI in courtrooms has raised concerns about the contestability of these systems, and their impact on procedural justice. The right to an explanation under the GDPR and the AI Act could address the inscrutability of judicial AI for litigants. To substantiate this right in the domain of justice, we examine utilitarian, rights-based (including dignitarian and Dworkinian approaches), and relational theories of procedural justice. These theories reveal diverse perspectives on contestation, which can help shape explainability rights in the context of judicial AI. These theories respectively highlight different values of litigant contestation: it has instrumental value in error correction, and intrinsic value in respecting litigants\' dignity, either as rational autonomous agents or as socio-relational beings. These insights help us answer three central and practical questions on how the right to an explanation should be operationalized to enable litigant contestation: should explanations be general or specific, to what extent do explanations need to be faithful to the system\'s actual behavior or merely provide a plausible approximation, and should more interpretable systems be used, even at the cost of accuracy? These questions are not strictly legal or technical in nature, but also rely on normative considerations. The practical operationalization of explainability will therefore differ between different valuations of litigant contestation of judicial AI.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, digital justice, Transparency},
}

Save .bib

Korte loopbaanbeschrijving van Prof. Egbert Dommering download

Dommering, E.

2025

Links

loopbaanbeschouwing_EJD

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies external link

Nguyen, A.

Law, Technology and Humans, vol. 7, iss. : 1, pp: 68-83, 2025

Abstract

Why are a host of states, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export controls on quantum computers with technical specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits) that are not yet realisable? No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory object of export controls is the network of technological artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical knowledge and R&D exchanges taking place to realise the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.

Links

quantum technologies

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nguyen, A.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-04-29
T1  - Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies
JO  - Law, Technology and Humans
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
SP  - 68-83
UR  - https://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/view/3777
DO  - https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3777
AB  - Why are a  host of states, such as  the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export  controls  on quantum computers  with technical  specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits)  that are not yet realisable?  No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory  object  of export controls is the network  of  technological  artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people  and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical  knowledge and R&D  exchanges taking place  to realise  the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.
K1  - quantum technologies
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies},
	author = {Nguyen, A.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3777},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-04-29},
	journal = {Law, Technology and Humans},
	volume = {7},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {68-83},
	abstract = {Why are a  host of states, such as  the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export  controls  on quantum computers  with technical  specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits)  that are not yet realisable?  No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory  object  of export controls is the network  of  technological  artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people  and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical  knowledge and R&D  exchanges taking place  to realise  the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.},
	keywords = {quantum technologies},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex