Britain spied on argentina over falklands snowden documents say court
The Federal District Court of Austria heard that the Italian spy ring targeted Germany’s biggest industrial city, where millions of jobs are concentrated
A European Court of Justice ruling has given a legal boost to whistleblower Edward Snowden, and영천출장마사지출장만남 will likely open the door to a long legal battle with the US government.
The Swiss Federal District Court granted an injunction seeking to stop the US state department’s request for an extension of secrecy surrounding secret documents leaked by Snowden over the NSA’s ‘Global Data Retention programme’.
But in the long-running case, the European court of justice, Luxembourg’s Court of Justice and Italy’s Court of Cassation, in which more than a dozen nations agreed to make their own rulings, will not be able to lift that injunction.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office said on Wednesday that she had instructed her defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, to ask the European Court of Justice whether the US has the right to hold back documents on the operation
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the secret surveillance is not aimed at 오바마 카지노German companies, only at foreign leaders
The move follows similar rulings by European courts last week that allowed for the release of German documents on the programme.
That prompted speculation t속초출장마사지hat the documents could be made public.
But the Federal District Court in Austria said it would hear the case next week.
The court said the case had been filed after the Guardian and the other media groups appealed to it and the US Justice Department.
The court said in its decision that any publication of Snowden’s documents could jeopardise German security, and that further revelations could harm European businesses and foreign institutions.
‘The court’s ruling cannot be viewed as a finding that US intelligence services have the right to conceal the content of the documents that have been leaked on Snowden, as some commentators have proposed,’ the court said, quoting from the judgement.
‘However, for the reasons listed above, the court is obliged to be satisfied that the government has not breached any of the principles stated in the law.’
‘The court must therefore determine the following: 1) whether such protection of information is essential to the security of the country; 2) the basis for the decision; 3) whether it is a reasonable measure to protect it from being released; 4) if, in this context, there are other, comparable measures, or if these in turn can be deemed to violate the principle of proportionality and proportionality of the procedure’.
Recent Comments