Tag: Health Data

The Commission’s Proposal for the European Health Data Space raises data protection concerns

21. July 2022

On May 3, 2022, the European Commission (EC) published its proposal for the creation of the European Health Data Space (EHDS). This proposal, if adopted, would foresee the creation of an EU-wide infrastructure that allows to link health data sets for practitioners, researchers, and industry. In its communication, the EC points at the necessity for promoting “the free, cross-border flows of personal data” with the aim of creating an “internal market for personal health data and digital health products and services”.

Doctors in Germany, by way of an example, would then be able to access the medical file of a Spanish patient that is currently undergoing medical treatment in Germany. In this context, it might be worthy to note that not all Member States are maintaining electronic records of patients having the consequence that this proposal would require certain member states to take steps towards digitalization. With regard to researchers and industry, the underlying incentive of this proposal is to enable them to draw from health data available to create new solutions and to push forward innovation.

Nevertheless, health data are sensitive data within the meaning of the GDPR, which means that access to such data is only exceptionally possible. This begs the question whether and how access to personal health data that this proposal is intending to enable, can be reconciled with the GDPR. Recently, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued a joint opinion on this new legislative initiative expressing several concerns in relation to the proposal from a data protection perspective.

If one takes the example of health data processed while accessing healthcare, then the legal ground of art. 9 (2) (h) GDPR, namely that of medical diagnosis or provision of health, would be applicable. Further processing for any other purpose, however, would then require the data subject’s consent.

In the words of EDPB Chair Andrea Jelinek: “The EU Health Data Space will involve the processing of large quantities of data which are of a highly sensitive nature. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the rights of the European Economic Area’s (EEA) individuals are by no means undermined by this Proposal. The description of the rights in the Proposal is not consistent with the GDPR and there is a substantial risk of legal uncertainty for individuals who may not be able to distinguish between the two types of rights. We strongly urge the Commission to clarify the interplay of the different rights between the Proposal and the GDPR.”

Diving into the details of the joint opinion, the EDPB and EDPS strongly recommends making secondary use of personal data steaming from wellness applications, such as wellness and behavioral data, be subject to the prior consent of the data subject, in case these data, contrary to EDPB and EDPS’ recommendation, are not excluded from the scope of this proposal altogether.

That would not only be in line with the GDPR, but would also make possible to differentiate between health data generated by wellness applications, on the one hand, and health data generated by medical devices, on the other hand.

The fundamental difference between both data lies in the different degrees of quality and the fact that wellness applications do also process, for instance, food practices which therefore allows to draw conclusions from data subjects’ daily activities, habits, and practices.

Processing of COVID-19 immunization data of employees in non-EEA countries

27. October 2021

As COVID-19 vaccination campaigns are well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information (vaccinated, recovered) and, if so, how that information may be used.

COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, if an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data.

The following discusses whether employers in various non-EEA countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related information about their employees.

Brazil: According to the Labor Code (CLT), employers in Brazil have the right to require their employees to be vaccinated. This is because the employer is responsible for the health and safety of its employees in the workplace and therefore has the right to take reasonable measures to ensure health and safety in the workplace. Since employers can require their employees to be vaccinated, they can also require proof of vaccination. Because LGPD considers this information to be sensitive personal data, special care must be taken in processing it.

Hong-Kong: An employer may require its employees to disclose their immunization status. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (OSHO), employers are required to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety and health of all their employees in the workplace. The vaccine may be considered as part of COVID-19 risk assessments as a possible additional measure to mitigate the risks associated with contracting the virus in the workplace. The requirement for vaccination must be lawful and reasonable. Employers may decide, following such a risk assessment, that a vaccinated workforce is necessary and appropriate to mitigate risk. If the employer does so, it must comply with the Personal Data Privacy Ordinance (PDPO). Among other things, the PDPO requires that the collection of data must be necessary for the purpose for which it is collected and must not be kept longer than is necessary for that purpose. Under the PDPO, before collecting data, the employer must inform the employee whether the collection is mandatory or voluntary for the employee and, if mandatory, what the consequences are for the employee if he or she does not provide the data.

UK: An employer may inquire about an employee’s vaccination status or conduct tests on employees if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to comply with its legal obligation to ensure health and safety at work. The employer must be able to demonstrate that the processing of this information is necessary for compliance with its health and safety obligations under employment law, Art. 9 (2) (b) UK GDPR. He must also conduct a data protection impact assessment to evaluate the necessity of the data collection and balance that necessity against the employee’s right to privacy. A policy for the collection of such data and its retention is also required. The information must be retained only as long as it is needed. There must also be no risk of unlawful discrimination, e.g. the reason for refusing vaccination could be protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.

USA: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a document in which it suggests that an employer may implement a vaccination policy as a condition of physically returning to the workplace. Before implementing a vaccination requirement, an employer should consider whether there are any relevant state laws or regulations that might change anything about the requirements for such a provision. If an employer asks an unvaccinated employee questions about why he or she has not been vaccinated or does not want to be vaccinated, such questions may elicit information about a disability and therefore would fall under the standard for disability-related questions. Because immunization records are personally identifiable information about an employee, the information must be recorded, handled, and stored as confidential medical information. If an employer self-administers the vaccine to its employees or contracts a third party to do so, the employer must demonstrate that the screening questions are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Processing of COVID-19 immunization data of employees in EEA countries

As COVID-19 vaccination campaigns are well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information (vaccinated, recovered, test result) and, if so, how that information may be used.

COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, whether an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data. However, the question of whether COVID-19-related data may be processed by an employer is evaluated differently, even in the context of the same data protection regime such as the GDPR.

The following discusses whether employers in various European Economic Area (EEA) countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related information about their employees.

Austria: The processing of health data in context of the COVID-19 pandemic can be based on Article 9 (2) (b) of the GDPR in conjunction with the relevant provisions on the duty of care (processing for the purpose of fulfilling obligations under labor and social law). Under Austrian labor law, every employer has a duty of care towards its employees, which also includes the exclusion of health hazards in the workplace. However, this only entitles the employer to ask the employee in general terms whether he or she has been examined, is healthy or has been vaccinated. Therefore, if the legislator provides for two other equivalent methods to prove a low epidemiological risk in addition to vaccination, the current view of the data protection authority is that specific questioning about vaccination status is not possible from a data protection perspective. An exception to this is only to be seen in the case of an explicit (voluntary) consent of the employee (Art. 9 (2) a) GDPR), but a voluntary consent is not to be assumed as a rule due to the dependency relationship of the employee.
As of November, employees will be obliged to prove whether they have been vaccinated, recovered from a COVID-19 infection or recently tested negative if they have physical contact with others in enclosed spaces, such as the office.

Belgium: In Belgium, there is no legal basis for the processing of vaccination information of employees by their employer. Article 9 (1) GDPR prohibits the processing of health data unless an explicit exception under Article 9 (2) GDPR applies. Such an exception may be a legal provision or the free and explicit consent of the data subject. Such a legal provision is missing and in the relationship between employee and employer, the employee’s consent is rarely free, as an employee may be under great pressure to give consent. The Belgian data protection authority also explicitly denies the employer’s right to ask.

Finland: The processing of an employee’s health data is only permitted if it is directly necessary for the employment relationship. The employer must carefully verify whether this necessity exists. It is not possible to deviate from this necessity by obtaining the employee’s consent. The employer may process an employee’s health data if this is necessary for the payment of sick pay or comparable health-related benefits or to establish a justified reason for the employee’s absence. The processing of health data is also permitted if an employee expressly requests that his or her ability to work be determined on the basis of health data. In addition, the employer is entitled to process an employee’s health data in situations expressly provided for elsewhere in the Act. The employer may request from occupational health care statistical data on the vaccination protection of its employees.

France: Since July 21st, 2021, a “health passport” is mandatory for recreational and cultural facilities frequented by more than 50 people, such as theaters, cinemas, concerts, festivals, sports venues. The health passport is a digital or paper-based record of whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered within 11 days to 6 months, or tested negative within 48 hours. There are several workplaces where vaccination has been mandatory for workers since August 30th, 2021. These include bars, restaurants, seminars, public transport for long journeys (train, bus, plane). The health passport is also mandatory for the staff and visitors of hospitals, homes for the elderly, retirement homes, but not for patients who have a medical emergency. Also, visitors and staff of department stores and shopping malls need to present a health pass in case the prefect of the department decided this necessary. In these cases, the employer is obliged to check if his employees meet their legal obligations. However, the employer should not copy and store the vaccination certificates, but only store the information whether an employee has been vaccinated. Employers who do not fall into these categories are not allowed to process their employees’ vaccination data. In these cases, only occupational health services may process this type of information, but the employer may not obtain this information under any circumstances. At most, he may obtain a medical opinion on whether an employee is fit for work.

Germany: Processing of COVID-19 related information is generally only permitted for employers in certain sectors. Certain employers named in the law, such as in §§ 23a, 23 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), employers in certain health care facilities (e.g. hospitals, doctors’ offices, rescue services, ) and § 36 (3) IfSG, such as day care centers, outpatient care services, schools, homeless shelters or correctional facilities, are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees. Other employers are generally not permitted to inquire about the vaccination status of employees. If allowed to process their employee’s vaccination status, employers should not copy the certificates but only check whether an employee is vaccinated. Although there has been an ongoing discussion in the federal government for several weeks about introducing a legal basis that would allow all employers to administer vaccination information. From November 2021, employers must check whether an employee who has been sanctioned with a quarantine due to a COVID-19 infection was or could have been vaccinated prior to the infection. According to Section 56 (1) sentence 4 IfSG, there is no entitlement to continued payment of remuneration for the period of quarantine if the employee could have avoided the quarantine, e.g. by taking advantage of a vaccination program. The employer must pay the compensation on behalf of the competent authority. As part of this obligation to pay in advance, the employer is also obliged to check whether the factual requirements for the granting of benefits are met. The employer is therefore obliged to obtain information on the vaccination status of its employee before paying compensation and, on this basis, to decide whether compensation can be considered in the individual case. The data protection basis for this processing activity is Section 26 (3) of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), which permits the processing of special categories of personal data – if this is necessary for the exercise of rights or the fulfillment of legal obligations arising from labor law, social security law and social protection law, and if there is no reason to assume that the data subjects’ interest in the exclusion of the processing, which is worthy of protection, outweighs this. The Data Protection Conference, an association of German data protection authorities, states that processing the vaccination status of employees on the basis of consent is only possible if the consent was given voluntarily and therefore legally effective, Section 26 (3) sentence 2 and (2) BDSG. Due to the relationship of superiority and subordination existing between employer and employee, there are regularly doubts about the voluntariness and thus the legal validity of the employees’ consent.

Italy: Since October 15, Italy has become the first country in the EEA to require all workers to present a “green passport” at the workplace. This document records whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered, or tested. A general vaccination requirement has been in effect for health care workers since May, and employees in educational institutions have been required to present the green passport since September.

Netherlands: Currently, there is no specific legislation that allows employers to process employee immunization data. Only the occupational health service and company doctors are allowed to process immunization data, for example when employees are absent or reintegrated. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has announced that he will allow the health sector to determine the vaccination status of its employees. He also wants to examine whether and how this can be done in other work situations. Currently, employers can only offer voluntary testing in the workplace, but are not allowed to document the results of such tests or force

Spain: Employers are allowed to ask employees if they have been vaccinated, but only if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to fulfill its legal obligation to ensure health and safety in the workplace. However, employees have the right to refuse to answer this question. Before entering the workplace, employees may be asked to provide a negative test or proof of vaccination if the occupational health and safety provider deems it necessary for the particular workplace.

No obligation to disclose vaccination certificates at events in Poland

7. July 2021

According to recent announcements, the Polish Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) has indicated that vaccinated individuals participating in certain events cannot be required to disclose evidence of vaccination against COVID-19.

In Poland, one of the regulations governing the procedures related to the prevention of the spread of coronavirus is the Decree of the Council of Ministers of May 6th, 2021 on the establishment of certain restrictions, orders and prohibitions in connection with the occurrence of an epidemic state. Among other things, it sets limits on the number of people who can attend various events which are defined by Sec. 26 para. 14 point 2, para. 15 points 2, 3. The aforementioned provisions concern events and meetings for up to 25 people that take place outdoors or in the premises/building indicated as the host’s place of residence or stay as well as events and meetings for up to 50 people that take place outdoors or in the premises/separate food court of a salesroom. Pursuant to Sec. 26 para. 16, the stated number of people does not include those vaccinated against COVID-19.

In this context the question has arisen how the information about the vaccination can be obtained. As this detail is considered health data which constitutes a special category of personal data referred to in Art. 9 para. 1 GDPR, its processing is subject to stricter protection and permissible if at least one of the conditions specified in para. 2 is met. This is, according to Art. 9 para. 2 lit. i GDPR, especially the case if the processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such as protecting against serious cross-border threats to health or ensuring high standards of quality and safety of health care and of medicinal products or medical devices, on the basis of Union or Member State law which provides for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the data subject, in particular professional secrecy.

The provisions of the Decree do not regulate the opportunity of requiring the participants in the mentioned events to provide information on their vaccination against COVID-19. Hence, it is not specified who may verify the evidence of vaccination, under what conditions and in what manner. Moreover, “specific measures to safeguard” as referred to in Art. 9 para. 2 lit. i GDPR, cited above, are not provided as well. Therefore, the regulations of the Decree cannot be seen as a legal basis authorizing entities obliged to comply with this limit of persons to obtain such data. Consequently, the data subjects are not obliged to provide it.

Because of this, collection of vaccination information can only be seen as legitimate if the data subject consents to the data submission, as the requirement of Art. 9 para. 2 lit. a GDPR will be fulfilled. Notably, the conditions for obtaining consent set out in Art. 4 para. 11 and Art. 7 GDPR must be met. Thus, the consent must be voluntary, informed, specific, expressed in the form of an unambiguous manifestation of will and capable of being revoked at any time.

Data Breach made 136,000 COVID-19 test results publicly accessible

18. March 2021

Personal health data are considered a special category of personal data under Art. 9 of the GDPR and are therefore given special protections. A group of IT experts, including members of the German Chaos Computer Club (CCC), has now revealed security gaps in the software for test centres by which more than 136,000 COVID-19 test results of more than 80,000 data subjects have apparently been unprotected on the internet for weeks.

The IT-Security experts’ findings concern the software “SafePlay” of the Austrian company Medicus AI. Many test centres use this software to allocate appointments and to make test results digitally available to those tested. In fact, more than 100 test centres and mobile test teams in Germany and Austria are affected by the recent data breach. These include public facilities in Munich, Berlin, Mannheim as well as fixed and temporary testing stations in companies, schools and daycare centres.

In order to view the test results unlawfully, one only needed to create an account for a COVID-19 test. The URL for the test result contained the number of the test. If this number was simply counted up or down, the “test certificates” of other people became freely accessible. In addition to the test result, the test certificate also contained the name, date of birth, private address, nationality and ID number of the person concerned.

It remains unresolved whether the vulnerabilities have been exploited prior to the discovery by the CCC. The CCC notified both Medius AI and the Data Protection Authorities about the leak which led to a quick response by the company. However, IT experts and Privacy-focused NGOs commented that Medicus AI was irresponsible and grossly negligent with respect to their security measures leading to the potential disclosure of an enormous amount of sensitive personal health data.

16 Million brazilian COVID-19 patients’ personal data exposed online

7. December 2020

In November 2020, personal and sensitive health data of about 16 Million brazilian COVID-19 patients has been leaked on the online platform GitHub. The cause was a hospital employee, that uploaded a spreadsheet with usernames, passwords, and access keys to sensitive government systems on the online platforms. Under those affected were also the brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and his family as well as seven ministers and 17 provincial governors.

Under the exposed systems were two government databases used to store information on COVID-19 patients. The first “E-SUS-VE” was used for recording COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms, while the second “Sivep-Gripe” was used to keep track of hospitalized cases across the country.

However, both systems contained highly sensitive personal information such as patient names, addresses, telephone numbers, individual taxpayer’s ID information, but also healthcare records such as medical history and medication regimes.

The leak was discovered after a GitHub user spotted the spreadsheet containing the password information on the personal GitHub account of an employee of the Albert Einstein Hospital in Sao Paolo. The user informed the Brazilian newspaper Estadao, which analysed the information shared on the platform before it notified the hospital and the health ministry of Brazil.

The spreadsheet was ultimately removed from GitHub, while government officials changed passwords and revoked access keys to secure their systems after the leak.

However, Estadao reporters confirmed that the leaked data included personal data of Brazilians across all 27 states.

Patients blackmailed after data breach at Finnish private psychotherapy center

9. November 2020

An unknown party breached Vastaamo, a Finnish private psychotherapy center. They accessed the electronic patient record, gathering thousands of confidential patient records.  According to a message left on a Finnish web-forum, they accessed up to 40 000 confidential records of psychotherapy patients. These include not only confidential information regarding therapy sessions but also personal information, such as the social security number. In Finland, this number allows the user to take on credits or found companies. On September 29th Vastaamo notified the Finnish authorities, while they notified the affected via E-Mail and letter after October 21st.

Though the attack prompted an emergency meeting of the Finnish Cabinet, up until now neither Finnish authorities nor Vastaamo released information regarding the nature of the breach.

The initial breach likely occurred in November 2018, while it is believed, there was a second attack that occurred before March 2019. In September 2020, the hackers contacted Vastaamo, demanding a payment of 40 Bitcoin (€ 450 000,00). Vastaamo refused to pay and instead contacted the police and other Finnish authorities. On instruction by the Finnish National Police, Vastaamo published information regarding the data breach, only after some of the data was published on the Tor Network on October 21st. Furthermore, the Board dismissed former CEO Ville Tapio, claiming he concealed the breach.

Further, in late October, the hackers sent messages to patients and employees of Vastaamo, threatening to post their patient files on the internet and demanding payments in Bitcoin. The national police advised victims not to pay the hacker, and instead asked them to save extortion emails or other evidence and file a police report. Until October 30th, Finland’s national police received up to 15 000 reports of offenses regarding this data-breach.

The National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health started an investigation of Vastaamo, while the Social Insurance Institution of Finland stopped referrals to Vastaamo.

Ever since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic the healthcare and the public health sectors are attacked more frequently, especially in the form of ransomware. The FBI’s Cyber Security Unit (CISA) and the US Department of Health and Human Services have issued a joint advisory regarding the matter. Adding onto that, according to IBM’s annual Cost of a Data Breach Report, the healthcare sector has the highest average breach cost, at 7.13 million per breach.

EDPB ratifies new Guideline on Health Data Processing during COVID-19

27. April 2020

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a new Guideline on the processing of health data for scienon the most urgent matters and issues in relation to the processing of health data. Those matters include the tific purposes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic on April 21, 2020. It aims at providing clarity on the most urgent matters and issues in relation to the processing of health data. Those matters include the legal basis for processing, the implementation of adequate safeguards as well as data subjects’ rights.

The Guideline states that the GDPR contains several provisions for the processing of health data in relation to scientific research. The first one would be the consent in Art. 6 (II) a GDPR in combination with Art. 9 (II) a GDPR. The EDPB emphasizes the necessity of the consent having to meet all the necessary conditions in order to be valid, notably consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and it must be made by way of a statement.

Further, the EDPB clarifies that Art. 6 (I) e or f GDPR in combination with the enacted derogations under Art. 9 (II) (i) or (j) GDPR can provide a legal basis for the processing of personal (health) data for scientific research. National legislators can implement their own derogations, setting ground for national legal bases in regulation with the GDPR.

The EDPB also addresses the case of further processing of health data for scientific purposes, which means the case when health data has not been collected for the primary purpose of scientific research. In these cases, the Guideline states that the scientific research is not incompatible with the original purpose of the processing, as long as the principles of Art. 5 GDPR are being upheld.

In regards to international transfers, the Guidelines make specific emphasis on the transfer to countries with no adequacy decision by the European Commission. In such cases, it is possible for the exporter of the data to rely on the derogations of Art. 49 (I) a, explicit consent, and d, transfer necessary for important public interest, GDPR. However, these derogations do not entitle continuous or repeated transfers, and are only supposed to be used as temporary measures. The EDPB states that this is a sanitary crisis like none before, and therefore the transfer to other countries in cases of scientific research form an international emergency in which the public interest may take first priority. But the Guideline makes clear that in case of repeated transfer, safeguards according to Art. 46 GDPR have to be taken.

The Guideline further emphasizes that situations like the current pandemic outbreak do not restrict data subjects to exercise their rights. However, Art. 82 (II) GDPR gives national lawmakers the possibility to restrict data subject rights, though these restrictions should apply only as is strictly necessary.

Over all, the EDPB states that it has to be noted that any processing or transfer will need to take into consideration on a case-by-case basis the respective roles (controller, processor, joint controller) and related obligations of the actors involved in order to identify the appropriate measures in each case.

Fine imposed on the City of Oslo

2. January 2020

The Norwegian data protection authority (datatilsynet) recently imposed a fine of €49,300 on the city of Oslo. The reason for the fine was that the city has kept patient data outside the electronic health record system at the city’s nursing homes/health centres from 2007 to November 2018.

The case became known because the City of Oslo reported a data breach to the Data Protection Authority in November 2018. This report included information that various governmental and private nursing homes/health centres were using work sheets. These contained information about the residents, such as their daily needs and care routines, but also full names and room numbers. The work sheets were stored on the respective intranet of the institution and all employees, including for example cleaning staff, had access to this data.

After the procedure came to the surface, the Nursing Home Agency instructed all nursing homes/health centres to delete the work sheets immediately. Due to the way the data was stored, it is not possible to determine who exactly accessed the data and when, and whether unauthorised persons were among them.

In calculating the amount of the fine, the Data Protection Agency has taken into account that the City of Oslo reported the incident itself and has taken quick steps to delete the data. It was also taken into account that the incident occurred for the most part in the period before the new Data Protection Act (in force since July 2018) came into force and that under the old Data Protection Act the maximum amount of a fine was €100,000.

Health data transfered to Google, Amazon and Facebook

18. November 2019

Websites, spezialized on health topics transfer information of website users to Google, Amazon and Facebook, as the Financial Times reports.

The transferred information are obtained through cookies and include medical symtoms and clinical pictures of the users.

Referring to the report of the Financial Times does the transfer take place without the express consent of the data subject, contrary to the Data Protection Law in the UK. Besides the legal obligations in the UK, the procedure of the website operators, using the cookie, contradicts also the legal requirements of the GDPR.

According to the requirements of the GDPR the processing of health data falls under Art. 9 GDPR and is a prohibition subject to permission, meaning, that the processing of health data is forbidden unless the data subject has given its explicit consent.

The report is also interesting considering the Cookie judgement of the CJEU (we reported). Based on the judgment, consent must be obtained for the use of each cookie.

Accordingly, the procedure of the website operators will (hopefully) change in order to comply with the new case law.

 

Pages: 1 2 Next
1 2