Fines of up to €250,000 per breach back the order on Telekom customers' lock screens. With Telekom appealing, can carriers still turn status bars into ad space?

(Politik - Europa) Monatelang wurde der Fall Walter P. von Boulevardmedien ausgeschlachtet, um Stimmung gegen trans Rechte zu machen. Nun hat das Wiener Verwaltungsgericht die Änderung seines Geschlechtseintrags revidiert und im Urteil klare Worte gefunden. lesen

Fines of up to €250,000 per breach back the order on Telekom customers' lock screens. With Telekom appealing, can carriers still turn status bars into ad space?

Fines of up to €250,000 per breach back the order on Telekom customers' lock screens. With Telekom appealing, can carriers still turn status bars into ad space?

Fines of up to €250,000 per breach back the order on Telekom customers' lock screens. With Telekom appealing, can carriers still turn status bars into ad space?

Reykjavik District Court has ruled that compensation is payable under Oddi hf.’s liability insurance with VÍS for a workplace accident in which a worker lost part of a finger while cleaning a fish-skinning machine. The court found that the company had not adequately protected its employees’ safet…

Reykjavik District Court has ordered a man to pay a fine of 1.5 million kronur for eight traffic offences, mbl.is reported. He drove a car six times while disqualified, including twice under the influence of alcohol, and operated a small vehicle under the influence on two occasions. The man was a…

A Luxembourg court has ruled that the finance ministry wrongly refused to release frozen securities belonging to an unsanctioned Russian company and its clients, in a judgment dated October 30.

Bids are now due November 24 and the auction moves to December 1, and a clause treating silence as consent is gone. What can creditors still fight in December?

Bids are now due November 24 and the auction moves to December 1, and a clause treating silence as consent is gone. What can creditors still fight in December?

A federal court has blocked President Donald Trump's proposal for a 250-foot arch monument in Washington, D.C., just hours after a federal panel voted to approve the project. The decision comes amid ongoing legal challenges to the Trump administration's plans for the monument, which was intended to honor veterans and serve as a new landmark in the nation's capital. The federal panel had approved the project earlier in the day, but a judge swiftly intervened, citing concerns over the project's environmental impact and potential disruption to local communities. The arch, which would have been the tallest structure in Washington, D.C., faced criticism from environmental groups and city officials who argued it would obstruct views of the Capitol and damage the surrounding ecosystem. The court's ruling is seen as a significant victory for opponents of the project, who have long argued that the arch would be an eyesore and a waste of public funds. The Trump administration has not yet commented on the court's decision, but legal experts suggest this could set a precedent for future monument projects in the nation's capital. The case has drawn attention to the tension between presidential initiatives and judicial oversight, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects. The arch was part of Trump's broader vision for transforming Washington, D.C., into a more 'monumental' city, a plan that has faced significant opposition from various stakeholders. The ruling also highlights the role of federal courts in reviewing and potentially blocking presidential initiatives that may conflict with existing laws or regulations. With the federal panel having approved the project just hours before the court's intervention, the decision has been described as a 'legal whirlwind' by legal analysts. The case is expected to continue through the appeals process, with both sides preparing for a lengthy legal battle. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how future presidential projects are reviewed and approved in the nation's capital.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a late-night ruling that prohibits Donald Trump from making threats against election officials. The court's decision, which came just before the November 3, 2026, deadline, bars Trump from using his platform to intimidate or threaten individuals involved in the electoral process. The ruling was made in response to a legal challenge filed by election officials who argued that Trump's public statements posed a direct threat to their safety and the integrity of the election. The court emphasized that such threats undermine the democratic process and could deter public servants from performing their duties. The case has drawn significant attention as it involves a former president and raises questions about the limits of free speech in the context of political threats. Trump's legal team has not yet commented on the ruling, but the decision is expected to have implications for future political discourse and the protection of election workers. The 9th Circuit's decision aligns with broader legal principles that protect public officials from intimidation, particularly in the context of elections. This ruling comes amid heightened tensions surrounding election security and the role of public figures in shaping public perception of electoral integrity. The court's action underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding democratic institutions against political pressure. The case is likely to be closely watched by legal experts and political observers as it sets a precedent for how courts handle similar threats in the future.

A dog owner must pay about 10,000 euros for the care and euthanasia of her dogs after a fatal attack in Naarn im Machland, the Upper Austria Regional Administrative Court said Friday, according to ORF. In October 2023, a 60-year-old jogger was attacked by three American Staffordshire Terriers on …

A young man has been given a five-month suspended prison sentence after driving at up to 193 km/h before a crash that left a passenger with a serious brain injury, mbl.is reported. The District Court of Northwest Iceland also banned him from driving for 12 months and ordered him to pay the passen…

A young man has been given a five-month suspended prison sentence after driving at up to 193 km/h before a crash that left a passenger with a serious brain injury, mbl.is reported. The District Court of Northwest Iceland also banned him from driving for 12 months and ordered him to pay the passen…

The Austrian Public Employment Service will automatically refund benefits following a court ruling on incorrect insurance deductions.

The plaintiff, a White school psychologist, claimed the remark fit a pattern of workplace discrimination. But courts have said such isolated comments don’t violate the law.