bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Article 4(11). Consent
Authors: Bygrave Lee A , Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 5 (Principles relating to processing of personal data) (see also recitals 33, 39 and 50); Article 6(1)(a) (Lawfulness of processing on basis of consent) (see too recital 40); Article 7 (Conditions for consent) (see also recital 42); Article 8 (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services) (see too recital 38); Article 9(2)(a) (Processing of special categories of personal data on basis of consent) (see too recital 51); Article 13 (Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject) (see too recitals 60–62); Article 14 (Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject); Article 17 (Right to erasure) (see too recital 65); Article 20 (Right to data portability) (see too recital 68); Article 22 (Automated individual decision-making, including profiling) (see too recital 71); Article 49(1)(a) (Transfer of personal data to third country or international organisation on basis of consent) (see too recitals 111–112).
Article 4(20). Binding corporate rules
Authors: Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4(7) (Definition of ‘controller’); Article 4(8) (Definition of ‘processor’); Article 4(18) (Definition of ‘enterprise’); Article 4(19) (Definition of ‘group of undertakings’); Article 46(2)(b) (Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards); Article 47 (Binding corporate rules); Article 49 (Derogations for specific situations concerned with transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations); Article 57(1)(s) (Supervisory authorities’ tasks); Article 58(3)(j) (Supervisory authorities’ powers); Article 64(1)(f) (Opinion of the Board); Article 70(1)(c) and (i) (Tasks of the Board).
Article 22 Automated individual decision-making, including profiling
Authors: Bygrave Lee A 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 3(2)(b) (Monitoring of data subjects’ behaviour); Article 4(4) (Definition of ‘profiling’); Article 5(1)(a) (Fair and transparent processing) (see also recitals 39 and 60); Article 5(2) (Accountability); Article 6 (Legal grounds for processing of personal data); Article 8 (Conditions applicable to children’s consent in relation to information society services); Article 12 (see too recital 58); Article 13(2)(f) (Information on the existence of automated decision-making); Article 14(2)(g) (Information on the existence of automated decision-making); Article 15(1)(h) (Right of access regarding automated decision-making); Article 21 (Right to object) (see also recital 70); Article 23 (Restrictions); Article 35(3)(a) (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recital 84); Article 47(2)(e) (Binding corporate rules); Article 70(1)(f) (EDPB guidelines on automated decisions based on profiling).
Article 25 Data protection by design and by default
Authors: Bygrave Lee A 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4(5) (Definition of ‘pseudonymisation’) (see too recital 28); Article 5(2) (Accountability) (see too recital 11); Article 6(4)(e) (Compatibility); Article 22 (Automated individual decision-making, including profiling) (see too recital 71); Article 24 (Responsibility of controllers); Article 28 (Processors) (see too recital 81); Article 32 (Security of processing) (see too recital 83); Article 34(3)(a) (Communication of personal data breach to data subject) (see too recitals 87–88); Article 35 (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recital 84); Article 40 (Codes of conduct); Article 83(2)(d) and 83(4) (Fines); Article 89(1) (Safeguards relating to processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes).
Article 37 Designation of the data protection officer
Authors: Rigaudias Cecilia Alvarez , Spina Alessandro 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 30 (Records of processing activities) (see too recital 82); Article 33 (Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority) (see too recital 85); Article 35 (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recitals 90–91); Article 36 (Prior consultation) (see too recital 94); Article 38 (Position of the data protection officer) (see too recital 97); Article 39 (Tasks of the data protection officer) (see too recitals 77 and 97).
Article 41 Monitoring of approved codes of conduct
Authors: Kamara Irene 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 24 (Responsibility of the controller) (see too recitals 74–77, 83); Article 35 (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recital 84); Article 40 (Codes of conduct); Article 46 (Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards) (see too recitals 108–109); Article 57 (Tasks); Article 58 (Powers); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board); Article 70 (Tasks of the Board); Article 83 (General conditions for imposing administrative fines) (see too recitals 150–151); Article 93 (Committee procedure).
Article 42 Certification
Authors: Leenes Ronald 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 5(2) (Principle of accountability); Article 24(3) (Responsibility of the controller); Article 25(3) (Data protection by design and by default); Article 28(5) (Responsibilities of the processor) (see too recital 81); Article 32(3) (Security of processing); Article 43 (Certification bodies); Article 46(2)(f) (Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards); Article 55 (Competence of the supervisory authorities); Article 56 (Tasks of the supervisory authorities); Articles 57(1)(n)–(q) (Tasks of the supervisory authorities) (see too recital 77); Article 58(h) (Powers of the supervisory authorities); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism); Article 64(1)(c) (Opinion of the Board); Article 70(1)(n)–(q) (Tasks of the Board); Article 93(4)(b) (General conditions for imposing administrative fines).
Article 45 Transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision
Authors: Kuner Christopher 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Recital 6; recital 102; Articles 13(1)(f) and 14(1)(f) (Information to a data subject); Article 15(1)(c) (Right to access information about data recipients in third countries); Article 23(2)(d) (Member States can restrict individuals’ rights but must provide for safeguards to prevent abuse or unlawful transfer) (see too recital 153); Article 28(3)(a) (Provisions of a data processing agreement stipulating controller’s instructions regarding data transfers); Article 30(1)(e) and (2)(c) (Internal records about data transfers); Article 40(2)(j) (Data transfer codes of conduct); Article 44 (General principles for transfers); Article 70(1)(s) (Assessment by the Board of the level of protection in a third country); Article 83(5)(c) (Fines for non-compliance with data transfer restrictions); Article 96 (Relationship with previously concluded agreements of the EU Member States).
Article 59 Activity reports
Authors: Hijmans Hielke 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 57 (DPA tasks) (see too recital 129); Article 57(1)(u) (Obligation for supervisory authorities to keep internal records of infringements of the GDPR and of measures taken under Article 58(2)); Article 58 (DPA powers) (see too recital 129); Article 71 (European Data Protection Board annual report); Article 97 (European Commission reports on the evaluation and review of the GDPR).
Article 60 Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned
Authors: Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4(16) (Definition of ‘main establishment’) (see too recital 36); Article 4(22) (Definition of ‘supervisory authority concerned’) (see also recital 36); Article 4(23) (Definition of ‘cross-border processing’); Article 4(24) (Definition of ‘relevant and reasoned objection’) (see too recital 124); Article 50 (International cooperation for the protection of personal data) (see too recitals 102 and 116); Article 55 (Competence of the supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122 and 128); Article 56 (Competence of the lead supervisory authority) (see also recitals 124–128); Article 57(1)(g) (Supervisory authorities’ task to cooperate with other supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 123 and 133); Article 58 (Powers of supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122 and 129); Article 61 (Mutual assistance) (see too recitals 123 and 133); Article 62 (Joint operations of supervisory authorities) (see too recital 134); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recitals 13, 136 and 138); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board) (see also recitals 135–136); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board) (see too recitals 136 and 143); and Article 66 (Urgency procedure) (see too recitals 137–138).
Article 65 Dispute resolution by the Board
Authors: Hijmans Hielke 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4(16) (Definition of the main establishment) (see too recital 36); Article 4(24) (Definition of a relevant and reasoned objection) (see too recital 124); Article 60(4) (Objection by a concerned supervisory authority to a draft decision of the lead supervisory authority); Articles 60(7)–(9) (Procedure to adopt a final decision by a supervisory authority); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recitals 123, 135 and 150 in fine); Article 64 (Cases when opinions of the Board are mandatory); Article 66 (Derogations from the consistency mechanism in case of urgency) (see too recitals 137–138); Article 74(1)(b) (Notification of binding decisions by the Chair of the Board); Article 74(1)(c) (Chair of the Board to ensure the timely performance of the Board’s tasks); Article 75(6)(g) (Secretariat to prepare, draft and publish decisions on the settlement of disputes between supervisory authorities) (see too recital 140); Article 76(1) (Confidentiality of Board’s discussions when necessary).
Article 89 Safeguards and derogations relating to processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes
Authors: Svanberg Christian Wiese 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4 (Definitions) (see too recital 26); Article 5 (Principles relating to processing of personal data); Article 6 (Lawfulness of processing) (see too recital 50); Article 9 (Processing of special categories of personal data) (see too recitals 52–53).
Article 93 Committee procedure
Authors: Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 28(7) (Standard contractual clauses); Article 40(9) (Codes of conduct); Article 43(9) (Certification mechanisms); Article 45(3) and (5) (Adequacy decisions); Article 46(2)(c)–(d) (Standard data protection clauses); Article 47(3) (Binding corporate rules); Article 61(9) (Format and procedures for mutual assistance); Article 67 (Exchange of information); Article 70(1) and (3) (Tasks of the Board); and Article 92 (Exercise of the delegation).
International Trust Disputes, Second Edition
Authors: Kempster Steven , McMillan Morven , Meek Alison 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The new edition of this leading work continues to provide full analysis of the legal and practical aspects arising in trusts disputes, with attention to jurisdiction-specific issues covering ten of the most relevant territories. Since the last edition the law has developed at a fast pace and trust disputes continue to increase as international trusts reach the second, third and sometimes fourth generation of beneficiary. In particular, there have been changes made to the law of succession in England and Wales (Intestacy Rules 2014) and case law such as Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] which consider the implications for family provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Developments relating to the position of trusts in matrimonial disputes are analysed and the issues for trust disputes and rights to information under The Data Protection Act (Dawson Damer v Taylor Wessing [2017]) are also included. Other important case law which is now considered include Pitt v Holt, re Futter [2013] and the development of the law of mistake thereafter, and the Pugachev litigation on sham trusts. International Trust Disputes provides a comprehensive and thorough treatment of this topic. Acting as a specialist guide for practitioners, it offers a survey of the special considerations that may arise with regard to trust disputes as well as a definitive guide to the issues which may be encountered in the jurisdictions where disputes are most likely to take place.
No-Contest Clauses
Authors: Warnock-Smith Shân 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
‘No-contest clauses’ are designed to discourage or eliminate challenges to the validity of trusts or wills or to the transfer of property to trustees or, sometimes and more widely, to the decisions of trustees or personal representatives. Since it is not possible in law to prevent a beneficiary from launching a challenge because that would attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court, the technique usually employed is to exclude a complaining beneficiary from benefit or to provide that her interest is forfeit either permanently or while the challenge is maintained or at the discretion of the trustees. The extent to which it is legally possible to effect an exclusion or to forfeit the interest is considered in this chapter. The principal reasons for their inclusion are considered below.
The Annual General Meeting
Authors: Kosmin Leslie , Roberts Catherine 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The annual general meeting of a company has been an established part of the corporate landscape since the passing of the first Companies Act in 1862. The annual general meeting provides shareholders with the opportunity to consider the contents of the company’s annual financial statements, the reports of the directors and auditors, to choose the composition of the board of directors of the company, to appoint or re-appoint the auditors and to question the management about their conduct of the company’s affairs in the previous year. It is the forum at which the shareholders, in companies both large and small, have the opportunity to ‘have their say’. If the concept of shareholder democracy means anything, it is reflected in the obligation of companies to hold an annual general meeting for their shareholders. However, as will be discussed in this chapter, changes of fashion and the impact of modern practicalities have given rise to a new approach to the annual general meeting in recent years, with the result that such a meeting is in the UK only required as a matter of law for public companies and, since the introduction of the Company (Shareholders’ Rights) Regulations 2009, for private companies that
The Role of the Chairman at Meetings of Directors
Authors: Kosmin Leslie , Roberts Catherine 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
It is usual for a valid board meeting to be chaired by one of the directors who will act as the chairman of the board. The chairman is the person who has control of the conduct of the meeting. The person who occupies the position of chairman of the board of directors holds an important position in the hierarchy of a company. It is the responsibility of the chairman to manage the board meeting and, in consultation with the chief executive officer and the company secretary, to set the agenda for board meetings. In managing a board meeting a chairman must ensure that all members of the board receive accurate and proper information in a timely manner so as to enable them to take informed management decisions.
Disclosure
Authors: Sprack John , Engelhardt–Sprack Michael 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
One crucial feature of the criminal trial in England and Wales has always been the duty of the prosecution to disclose the evidence which is at its disposal to the defence. The rationale for this duty is the disparity of resources between the Crown on the one hand (with its access to the investigative facilities of the police and specialist services such as those of forensic scientists), and the individual accused of an offence on the other hand. In an effort to ensure a fair trial for the accused, and to achieve ‘equality of arms’ as far as possible between the Crown and the accused, there developed a common-law duty owed by the prosecution to the defence. This duty had two aspects:
The Verdict
Authors: Sprack John , Engelhardt–Sprack Michael 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
When the judge has finished his summing-up, a court usher takes an oath to keep the jury in some ‘private and convenient place’, to prevent anybody speaking to them without leave of the court, and not to speak to them himself ‘except it be to ask them if they are agreed upon their verdict’. Having so sworn, the usher, who is referred to as the jury bailiff, leads the jury to their room and stations himself outside. During the period of their retirement the jury are kept together so that through discussion and argument they can arrive at a unanimous verdict (or, at least, at a verdict upon which the requisite majority of them are agreed: see 21.34 to 21.37). As far as possible, they are kept apart from everybody else, because no outside influences should affect a jury’s verdict. They and they alone must reach a decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and they should reach that decision solely on the basis of the evidence and speeches they have heard in court combined with their own experience of life and good sense. Three interconnected rules are designed to ensure that nothing untoward occurs while the jury are considering their verdict.
The Modern Takeover Code and Takeover Panel
Authors: Kershaw David 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This Chapter commences the book’s analysis of the Takeover Code and the Panel. The Chapter considers the structure and operation of the Panel and the structure and the scope of application of the Code. It commences with an analysis of the nature of the regulatory system, which before 2006 would have been described as self-regulation of the takeover market and today is more appositely described as market-controlled regulation. The Chapter considers the pros- and cons- of self/market regulation and argues that the standard advantages that are claimed for this form of regulation, as compared to state regulation, are not clearly established in the context of takeovers. Furthermore, the Chapter argues that here are several concerns about self-regulation that are raised by Takeover Panel regulation. In particular, recent events raise concerns about the regulatory outlook of the Panel and its reticence to consider the broader effects of its rules, and a concern that self-regulatory “status anxiety” may generate overreaction to certain events and distorted rule responses. Resulting in Code rules that are the product of a narrow understanding of their effects and status anxiety rather than a neutral policy assessment of the effects of the rules. The Chapter then details the legal foundations of the Takeover Panel’s power to regulate takeovers put in place to implement the Takeover Directive and considers the make-up and the roles of the different Panel bodies – the Code and Hearings Committees and the Panel Executive – and the role of the Takeover Appeal Board. Although the UK Government’s and the Panel’s objective in implementing the Directive was to maintain business as usual, the Chapter identifies operational changes that result from implementation. The Chapter then proceeds to consider the structure of the Code. It considers the Code’s General Principles and their relationship to Code rules and to a set of core underlying Code principles which the Chapter describes as the Code’s grund principles. The Chapter then considers the status of the Code rules as an autonomous “non-legal” set of rules and analyses the more complex relationship between the Code rules and company law generated by the Directive. The Chapter concludes with an analysis of the scope of application of the Code and the Directives conflict of laws’ rules for addressing EEA cross takeover regulation conflict.
Regulating Board Discretion: Directors’ Duties
Authors: Kershaw David 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This Chapter steps away from the Code’s regulation of the deal process to consider UK company law’s regulation of target and bidder directors’ discretion in an offer. Here we consider the constraints that UK directors’ duties impose on bid decision making, including the decisions to make, to recommend or to reject an offer. The Chapter considers three duties: the duty to promote the success of the company in Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006; the duty to use powers for their proper purposes in Section 171(b) of the Act, which was formally known as the proper purpose doctrine; and the duty of care in section 174. With regard to Section 172, the Chapter argues that it is important to understand the distinction between the standard as a standard of expected behaviour and the standard as a standard of liability. As a standard of expectation the standard should in theory impose restraint on bidder hubris and requires target boards to focus on value, which in some instances will require the recommendation of a premium bid where the value of the bid exceeds the discounted long term value of the company. But as a standard of liability, directors are highly unlikely to be found to violate this duty as the standard is a subjective duty, which in application creates a plausibility or rationality standard. With regard to section 171(b), although the duty is rarely invoked in a public takeover context as it is pre-empted by the non-frustration rule, its consideration is central to understanding the nature, effects and potential reform of the non-frustration rule considered in Chapter XI. Accordingly, it is considered here with other relevant duties. Finally, the Chapter considers the nature and effect of the duty of care. Drawing on the recent example of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s takeover of ABN and Ambro as well as comparative law, the Chapter explores the meaning of the requirements of the duty of care is a deal context.
Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System
Authors: Bettinger Torsten 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Although the Internet has no cross-organizational, financial, or operational management responsible for the entire Internet, certain administrative tasks are coordinated centrally. Among the most important organizational tasks that require global regulation is the management of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and their corresponding domain names. The IP address consists of an existing 32 bit (IP4) or 128 bit (IP6) sequence of digits and is the actual physical network address by which routing on the Internet takes place and which will ensure that the data packets reach the correct host computer.
Italy (‘.it’)
Authors: Fabbio Philipp 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Statutory provisions dealing specifically with domain names are found in the Codice della Proprietà Industriale (‘the CPI’),1 ss 12(1)(c), 22, 118(6), and 133. Sections 12(1)(c) and 22 define the scope of trademark protection. In doing so, they also consider interference with domain names that are used in the course of a business activity (nomi a dominio aziendali). Sections 118(6) and 133 deal with remedies for trademark infringements and make explicit reference to domain names as well. Besides these specific rules, conflicts before the Italian courts based on domain name registrations are to be resolved according to the general rules of trademark, competition, and civil law.
Jurisdiction and the Types of Companies that may Propose Schemes
Authors: O’Dea Geoff , Long Julian , Smyth Alexandra 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The court has power to sanction a scheme in relation to a ‘company’. For the purposes of Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (except section 900), a ‘company’ means ‘any company liable to be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986’ or the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (SI 1989/2405 (NI 19)). This includes companies formed and registered under the Companies Act 2006 and other unregistered companies, such as chartered companies and, subject to the issues outlined further below, foreign companies.