Editorial

 

Abhilash Nair and Paul Maharg

 

Welcome to the third and final issue of 2017 of the European Journal of Law and Technology. In this issue we present two original articles, a commentary and a book review.

The problems of legislative website design are well known to readers of EJLT.  Over the past couple of decades we have published many articles dealing in whole or in part with the considerable design issues posed by the publication of official legislation, where right of public access to legal information is hindered by frustratingly poor website design. Mitee's article focuses on a number of perennial problems arising from the fragmentary publication of digital legal data management on official government information sites, namely the number and range of such sites, their silo-like qualities, and the issues that these cause for users trying to locate such official information at all levels of government in a country.  His study of 51 countries identifies the problem as existing in both developed and developing countries.  His response is a system of official networked, one-stop legal information websites which would guarantee the 'whole stock of legal information of a legislative jurisdiction on one single website'; and his article describes and analyses how this might be implemented.  

In his article, Radosavljev has investigated the recent GS Media case of the CJEU. This looks at the liability under copyright law of those providing hyperlinks. The case is one which could have an important impact on the copyright balance, and it is this issue that the author analyses. It also highlights some additional concerns which the CJEU could have considered. There are some useful technical observations that are also made.  For those who wish to research further into the topic of copyright infringement issues with regard to hyperlinking (with reference to secondary liability and the communication right), this article is worth reading.

The new General Data Protection Regulation has sparked a number of debates on various provisions. In our Commentary section, Roig offers an informative overview of the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing under Art 22 of the GDPR and the challenges involved in meeting the true spirit and requirements of the law.

Finally, Ward and Stockdale provide an informative, well balanced, and thorough review of the book, Electronic Evidence (fourth edition) edited by Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng (IALS, University of London).