Justice

Justice has told them a couple of things

by

Convert a window into a door to have private access to the common patio, install the washing machine, place pots and a clothesline. This is how two owners acted of a building in Seville without having the authorization of the community of neighbors. The Provincial Court has confirmed that they must now reverse all the works and remove their belongings from the patio. Conflict. As you can read in the sentencethe lighthouse was a common space belonging to two buildings. One of them filed a lawsuit against these owners for opening a hole in the wall that faced the patio, allowing them to access directly from their home and use the area as if it were private, just as they explain from NewsWork. All of this without having requested or obtained the approval of the owners’ meeting. The defense. The reported neighbors alleged that there was discrimination, since another owner had maintained a similar door to the same patio for decades. They also argued that the neighbors at the time expressed indifference and that the lawsuit was motivated by poor personal relationships. However, none of these arguments succeeded. What the law says. The Provincial Court of Seville rejected the appeal and confirmed the First Instance ruling. Just like express From the middle, according to article 7.1 of the Horizontal Property Law, no owner can make alterations to common elements without express permission from the community. Opening a hole in the façade requires approval by board agreement, something that in this case was never requested. The problem of exclusive use. The court pointed out that he article 397 of the Civil Code establishes that no community member can use a common space in a way that excludes others or prevents their use. By installing a washing machine, pots, clothesline and other personal items, these owners were depriving the rest of the neighbors of shared use of the patio. Someone doing it is not enough. The fact that another neighbor has been granted that right does not automatically authorize the rest of the owners to do the same. The sentence discard the “comparative grievance” as a justification for repeating previous violations, especially when there is no community agreement to support it. In this way, the community would have acted within the legal framework. A recent use. The defendants were also unable to demonstrate that they had acquired rights through the passage of time. The acquisition of easements by prescription requires peaceful, public and continuous use for at least 20 years, according to the article 537 of the Civil Code. In this case, just as share the medium, the intervention was recent and without legitimation. Conviction. The two neighbors must close the door, replace the original window and remove all elements from the common patio: washing machine, flower pots, clothesline and any other object. In addition, they are obliged to repair the damage caused in the area and assume the full cost of the work to restore the previous state of the façade and the shared patio. Cover image | Javier Gomez In Xataka | The best horror movie of this winter has been released. And the protagonists are the owners of a home in Spain

In 2019, Iberia lost a dog before flying. Now the European Justice says that it is worth the same as a suitcase

by

After six years of trials, the Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its verdict: a dog is a suitcase. The question that the European court had to resolve is whether the loss of a pet should entail greater compensation than that contemplated for a suitcase. And the response has been blunt. October 22, 2019. That was the day an Argentine family lost their dog Mona. That day, the family was at the Ezeiza airport, next to Buenos Aires, to travel to Barcelona. Given the company’s regulations, Mona had to travel in a carrier in the hold of the plane, but during the loading operation, the dog escaped from the control of the operators and, scared, ran towards the runway. They explained those days in The Vanguard that Grisel, its owner, was completely sure that she had closed the cage properly. However, once they were seated, a flight attendant approached to notify them of what had happened and confirm that the dog had escaped. The mother, who was accompanying Grisel, then claimed to have seen her dog running away and the workers trying to catch her but they were not allowed to get off the plane. Loss. After this first moment of anguish had passed, the family claimed that the Iberia workers confirmed that the dog had been trapped and that they had to give them a telephone number so that a contact could come get the animal at the airport. However, when Christian, the owner’s brother, went to the airport, they told him that the dog had escaped again and that they had not been able to catch her. Since then, the family did everything possible to investigate in the vicinity of the airport if the animal was nearby but with no luck. Iberia’s response. Then, the family was already indicating that they were unhappy with how Iberia had handled the situation. “We do not have any type of response from the airline. Iberia tells us that as happened in Argentina, nothing can be done from Spain,” they explained to the Catalan newspaper at the time. For its part, from Iberia in Argentina, the company assured Clarion that they were very sorry for what happened and that both Iberia and the airport manager kept the search active. According to her version, the animal “broke one of the sides of the cage and escaped. Before shipping any cage with an animal inside, we always seal the opening doors to prevent the animal from opening it and escaping. However, Mona broke the opposite side of the cage and that’s why she got out.” They confirm that the workers managed to recover Mona but she bit the worker’s arms and face, fleeing again. “Non-material damage”. Given the animal was lost, the family decided to report Iberia to claim compensation for what happened. Given the seriousness of the matter, the family requested that the company pay 5,000 euros for “non-material damages”, which Iberia refused, they explain in Guardian. They explain in the English newspaper that Iberia agreed to compensate for the loss of the animal since it had escaped under the responsibility of its workers. However, they were not willing to pay more than would be paid for the loss of any luggage. That is, they would pay but the same amount that they would pay for the loss of a suitcase. Europe agrees… with Iberia. During a process that has lasted six years, since the Madrid game they escalated the debate in 2024 to the Court of Justice of the European Union who, finally, ruled in favor of Iberia. The company will compensate the family as if they had lost a suitcase. That is to say, just under 1,600 euros which is the maximum amount contemplated for these cases. When the issue was brought to the European court, Iberia defended itself, arguing that “It makes no sense to equate animals with people. The owner, the only one who fully understands the animal, is the one who chooses to expose it to the often stressful and challenging experience of traveling by plane.” And he stressed that “it is his responsibility to prepare it for the trip, assume the risk of exposing it to an inhospitable environment and guarantee its veterinary aptitude. But the most important thing is that only he can assess the deep emotional bond with his pet and, therefore, the moral damage he would suffer if something happened to him during transport.” How is a pet valued? According to the Court of Justice of the European Unionvery simply: a special declaration of the value of the pet. This is what, in the opinion of the European court, the family should have signed and the company accepted. When this agreement is reached, the company agrees to pay a higher compensation if something happens but the passenger also pays a surcharge for the transportation of the animal. This is, in the opinion of Carlos Villa Corta, the family’s lawyer, a “missed opportunity to continue raising awareness about the rights of animals and the people who care for them. The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that pets do not deserve special or improved legal protection compared to a simple suitcase,” in words reported by Guardian. What the European court alleges is that the Montreal Convention that regulates these cases speaks of “people and luggage” and that, therefore, the term people would cover the damages to the “passenger” and that everything else must be considered as luggage. And they emphasize: “the fact that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognized by the European Union does not prevent animals from being transported as ‘baggage’ and being considered as such for the purposes of liability resulting from the loss of an animal.” Photo | TA-WEI LIN and Miguel Angel Sanz In Xataka | What the law says about breaking a car window when a dog is suffering from heat stroke

Justice has annulled it

by

A medical visitor from Galicia, with productivity awards and a salary of almost 5,000 euros per month, was fired after his company’s decision to put a Private detective to control you. He accused him of working just 90 minutes a day when he said he did much more. But justice has made a decision that radically contradicts the criteria followed by the company. The detective stopwatch that has not served at all. This story starts in the spring of 2024, as collects the judicial sentence. The medical visitor who worked for a pharmaceutical company had the task of visits to doctors to sell their new treatments. But after a decline, the company decided to hire a private detective to monitor its movements. The commercial was controlled by all fronts. Both his company car and the tablet he used could register their movements within the working day. But the detective in this case detected important irregularities between what the commercial reported and what really did in its day to day. A demolishing report for the worker. After monitoring from different locations in Galicia, it was seen that the worker said he worked more than he really did. For example, in Vigo the employee reported four hours of work where he visited 12 doctors. The detective timed only an hour and a half of activity in the hospital. The same happened in Ourense, where he spent 45 minutes in a cafeteria, although he points out that he visited four doctors. In the case of Pontevedra and Ferrol, these same patterns were repeated as there were stay times in hospitals much lower than the day and visits that the commercial recorded on its agenda. With this report in the hand, the company concluded that there was an abuse of flagrant trust, since of the 51 visits he said he made, the company, based on surveillance, attributed “five to the most” and proceeded to fire him. Productivity weighs more than GPS. This case reached the high courts and that was where the company’s argument collapsed. The worker’s defense focused not on the hours he physically passed in a hospital, but on the nature of his position and the demonstrated performance. For the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia It is very striking for the company to reward the worker up to 4,000 euros for having great productivity and be an “exemplary worker.” In this way, for judges efficiency is not laziness, since they point out that it is fully compatible to make “visits together”, something that a detective cannot interpret correctly. A pulse between two work models. The TSXG ruling confirms the inadmissibility of the dismissal and forces the company to choose between the worker’s readmission or the payment of compensation that exceeds 118,000 euros. Beyond the particular case, this sentence opens the current debate on the measurement of work. It shows that, at least in judicial field, the idea that monitor connection hours o Physical presence is an obsolete method to evaluate roles based on autonomy and objectives. There are many techniques to avoid time control. This is not an isolated case in the offices, as with Teams where The connection status can be controlled to see who is workingwhich also makes Companies appear to monitor workers who telework. Even in the offices it has been seen as the gene generation makes ‘task masking’ that is literally pretend that you work. Everything so that they do not receive more tasks they already have. And all because evaluating the goals for hours cannot be the most appropriate. It is not an isolated case. There are many companies that follow this same strategy, especially for combat possible false casualties That there are in your template. And it is completely legal, since according to the Private Security Lawdetectives can act in the face of suspicion of fraud in work decline. Images | Hunters Race In Xataka | This worker promised them happy combining three jobs, until he made an error and in a matter of hours was unemployed

Justice allows airlines what Spain wants to fine. And who is winning is Ryanair

by

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid He has precautionary suspended sanctions of 179 million euros that consumption imposed to five airlines receivable the hand luggage. Companies will continue to invoice these services as an extra, at least until there is a final sentence. Why is it important. This judicial decision comes in full clash between Spanish and European regulations. Spain considers these practices illegal and sanctions them. The European Union Council expressly supports them. However, the latter has not yet been translated into current law, for the moment The European Parliament wants to restore its gratuity And then the inter -institutional negotiation will arrive. In figures. Ryanair and Norwegian have achieved precautionary measures contributing 110 and 1.8 million bank guarantees respectively. The magistrates argue that the fines are “very high” and their anticipated payment would cause “difficulties to the Treasury” of the airlines. This does not mean in any case that the court considers the fine illegitimate, only there are reasons to suspend it while judging. Ryanair heads the sanctions with 107 million, followed by Vueling (39.3), Easyjet (29,1), Norwegian (1.6) and Volotea (1,2). The total fine amounts to 179 million euros. The context. The EU Council reforms in June the European regulations for expressly allow collection by cabin suitcaseslimiting free luggage to packages of 40x30x15 centimeters. This reform, of course, must still be ratified by the European Parliament. But the European Parliament Transportation Commission this week approved a opposite proposal: That each passenger can wear a small bag and suitcase without additional cost. Between the lines. The European Commission has already opened a procedure against Spain for possible irregularities in these sanctions. Meanwhile, airlines press to maintain their freedom of rates. It is a clash between two ways of understanding the business of flying: Ryanair disaggregates everything that can be reduced to the basic ticket and fill the airplanes, something that explains its good profitability. Legislators want a basic ticket to include certain services that cannot be disaggregated. The only thing that all parts seem to coincide is to allow a small bag or backpack for free (40x30x15 cm). It is the minimum difference between plane traveling and traveling by subway. And now what. The proposal of the Parliament must go through the plenary in July and negotiate with the Member States. Until then, the airlines will maintain their current policies, which are also now backed by the Spanish judicial decision. Minister Pablo Bustinduy is confident that the position of the European Parliament prevails. The airlines, meanwhile, have won judicial legitimacy to continue charging hand luggage as extra. Outstanding image | In Xataka | The great secret of Ryanair’s success is that he does not earn money to fly: he does so squeezing you in everything else

It is unpublished that justice allows something like that

by

This weekend we have lived a unique First Division League day. No longer for the celebration of Barça-Madrid on Sunday, but because once LaLiga returned to order indiscriminate blockages of IPS that affected a large number of domains. In this case there were even institutional websites such as the Madrid City Council that They were inaccessibleand this opens a new chapter in this absolute disaster that remains without predictable solution. What happened. Last weekend the blockades affected X, Redsys and cited institutional websites Like the Madrid City Council. It is another drop more than one glass that does not seem to stop: we carry Almost three months in which IPS blockages are uninterruptedly causing thousands of websites that are inaccessible. And we are talking about particular websites or fully legitimate companies. Cloudflare against LaLiga. The only crime of these websites is to use the services (free or payment) of Cloudflare. This CDN, DNS and Proxies service provider helps these websites improve their global availability and also Protects from cyber attacks. As we have explained above, Cloudflare makes use of shared IPS that brings together hundreds or thousands of domains, and when LaLiga orders to block one of those IPS, that affects all the domains that use that shared IP. Result: They pay fair for sinners. There should be no damage to third parties. He Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC) indicates that these types of actions should be rejected when they suppose a damage to third -party not demanded in the procedure. Thus, there should be no damage to third parties, but there is and justice is not apparently doing anything to prevent it. But they keep paying fair for sinners. We know that these blockages are not only preventing users’ access to certain domains, but there are also companies that are suffering economic and reputational damage. This last weekend the thing was even more striking, because among those affected were institutional websites such as the Madrid City Council. Before others were like those of the Royal Academy of Languagebut still there have been no changes from the judicial environment, LaLiga or the operators. Denied nullity. Rootedcon and Cloudflare fought against that sentence in which LaLiga relies. The nullity of said judgment was requested, but the court that managed the petition rejected this request. He also dismissed Cloudflare requests when stopping these blockages, and for now these hard judicial setbacks have allowed LaLiga to continue ordering those blockages and affecting thousands of legitimate domains. Something unusual. There are no documented precedents in Spain of such massive and indiscriminate blockages that they have left institutional websites or public bodies out of service. In previous interventions for distribution of contents with copyright – as those that achieved close websites like Lectulandia or those that They shared music illegally – the measures were aimed at concrete domains and not to shared infrastructure. What do experts say. We have spoken with Ofelia Tejerina (@Fetg), lawyer and president of the Association of Internet users. She reminds us that the Article 264 of the Criminal Codewhich speaks of sanctions for computer crimes, indicates the following: “The one that by any means, without authorization and seriously deleted, damage, deteriorate, alter, suppress or make inaccessible computer data, computer programs or electronic documents outside, when the result produced was serious, will be punished with the prison penalty of six months to three years.” Both this article and the previous one seem to be clear with what should be done before these blockages, which are causing damage to third parties and that are also making inaccessible computer data during blockages. And yet, everything remains the same. The silence surprises. Tejerina remembers how with the SGAE IPS were traced and the persecution was to end users, but European justice made it clear that those They were private communications Although years later his speech I changed completely. For her “this systematic, arbitrary and irrational blockade is unusual.” But it also shows the same surprise as many of a situation that does not seem to have made the alarms of official institutions or justice jump: “We are attending an execution of a completely unlimited court order that affects fundamental rights, public services and freedom of business. We have for example a defender of the People or a Secretariat of State for Communications. Everyone knows what is happening, they must protect neutrality in the network and have the ability to operate ex officio, but do not do so. Speech.” Images | Peter Glaser In Xataka | LaLiga has found the best way to beat Cloudflare: ally with its competition

If the question is “I can wear a free hand suitcase with Ryanair”, the response of justice is: it depends

by

Win and lose. And along the way a fine continues to float a fine and the consequences derived from it. The sanction to Ryanair receives an extra cost in the hand suitcase continues to leave us sentences and one thing is clear: neither the justice itself agrees. A fine. It all starts last November. One is confirmed Historical fine to four operators. Of these, Ryanair is the most affected. The sanction is 107.78 million euros and is imposed to breach the rights of passengers to carry a hand suitcase without extra cost. At least that is what the government that sanctions the company through consumption. Ryanair, on the contrary, has another opinion. Yes, it accepts that there is a regulation that allows free hand luggage to be carried out but it shields that there are no established measures for it. As there is no “standard” suitcase, they charge to carry the luggage that can be transferred to the winery. What are Ryanair’s conditions? First of all, what we have to know is that Ryanair does let a lump to the cabin. But that is, exclusively a lump that does not exceed the measures of 40 x 20 x 25 cm. That size does not comply with those considered as cabin bags that extend up to 55 x 40 x 20 cm and 10 kg of weight. In that case, in carrying with us a trolley to the cabin of the plane, we will have to pay the fee Regular or priority that opens the door to that usual suitcase in the planes and a second lump such as a backpack or a bag. This game with the diffuse areas of the law, that of not being defined in any regulations what are the exact measures of a suitcase, is the one that the Irish company grabs to defend its position before the demands of the users. Ryanair wins. At least in Seville. There, the company has made the resource of a client who was forced to pay for the cabin suitcase does not prosper. Section 2 of the Mercantile Court of Seville has dismissed the demand filed by the traveler, they explain since The world. The client understood that they were charging 12 euros on a round trip (six per trip) illegally. However, the Sevillian court buys the defense of Ryanair: it is not true that it is prevented from flying with a free suitcase, what Ryanair prevents is accessing with a suitcase superior to the dimensions of 40 x 20 x 25 cm. And they point out that the client was allowed “to carry a lump of reasonable dimensions.” Ryanair loses. At least in Salamanca. There, the company has to return 147 euros to a passenger receivable the cabin suitcase in five different routes between 2019 and 2024, they point out in eldiario.es. The affected person is a Facua partner, an association through which they have filed their demand. In this case, the passenger denounced that the company had forced him to choose the rate Priority to be able to access the cabin of the plane with your hand luggage in which it only wore basic clothes and equipment. The judge has based her decision that “hand luggage is an indispensable element of passenger transport (…) cannot be subject to price supplement,” they collect in The world. Beyond specific cases. What we have, in addition to two contradictory sentences, is that the battle between Ryanair and the Government continues. On the one hand, from the Executive they defend the consumption decision and, on the other, Ryanair continues to show that the sentences in which they obtain favorable results They are certification that the company “fully complies with the legislation of the European Union.” The problem for passengers is that the pulse between Ryanair and Government has overflowed and is affecting peripheral airports, where the company had a substantial role in air traffic and where is marching as a pressure measure To the Executive. In fact, the company has insisted that if Aena’s rates do not fall in the future (the excuse to reduce the presence in these places) will continue to derive its operations To other places. Operations like its new line to Morocco that despite the low volume of occupation keeps open thanks to a government doping. Doping that, by the way, We have also applied in Spain. Photo | Fotis In Xataka | Choosing seat to fly has become a luxury. Now Ryanair has his own subscription to assure you

Justice declares illegal part of its advertising business

by

Google’s position as One of the most powerful actors on the Internet begins to crack under the pressure of the courts. The last setback for the Mountain View company has arrived with a defeat in the trial for advertising monopoly promoted by the United States Department of Justice. In a resolution signed this Thursdayfederal judge Leonie Brinkema has concluded that Google incurred anti -competitive practices in two key markets: that of advertisement servers for editorial groups (where she dominates with DFP) and the advertising exchanges of the Open Web (through ADX). Ads servers, such as DFP, owned by Google, are technical infrastructure that use many digital media to manage What ads are shown, when and who already. They are not the only market option, but one of the most widespread, especially among large editors. In practice, they act as the digital advertising command center. The second front is that of the advertising exchanges of the Open Web, the open environment where different actors, such as advertisers, agencies or media, bid in real time for advertising spaces. This ecosystem coexists with other alternatives, such as platforms controlled by Facebook or Amazon, but remains a key piece of the programmatic market. Adx, Google’s solution, is one of the main actors in this segment. According to the court, the company combined both products illegally For more than a decade, forcing editors to use all their technology if they wanted to access those auctions. That integration reduced the alternatives of the rest of the actors and left Google with the absolute control of the process. The question now is how to dismantle monopoly Brinkema considers that this strategy not only eliminated rivals, but also harmed the media, who saw their advertising income reduced, and advertisers, who ended up paying more. The sentence argues that any benefit derived from this integration is widely exceeded by the damage caused to the competition. From here a new stage opens. The judge has asked the parties to present a calendar to study the so -called “structural remedies”, that is, the possible measures that could be imposed following this ruling. Among the options that consider the Department of Justice is the forced separation of DFP and ADX as independent companieswhich would mean the heart of the Google programmatic advertising business. The sentence does not order that division at the moment, but the possibility is on the table. What happens in this phase can mark a before and after how digital advertising is managed. This part of the business meant about 30.4 billion dollars in revenues in 2024, approximately 9 % of the group’s global billing. Although the judicial decision does not affect other Google advertising services such as search advertisements, YouTube videos or Google Maps advertising, it does question the architecture on which its advertising strategy is supported in the open web environment, where until now it worked as a player who dominated all the pieces of the board. During the trial, the Court listened to media editors such as Use Today or the Daily Mailto advertising agencies, to rival technology companies already executives of Google herself, including the head of YouTube. All contributed information about how the Mountain View giant was closing the passage to other advertising solutions through internal decisions, conditioned contracts and technological changes designed to benefit only their own tools. The Department of Justice also denounced that Google eliminated internal conversations that could serve as proof and abused legal privilege to hide information. Although the judge has not yet resolved if he will impose sanctions for it, it makes clear in her letter that the responsibility for monopoly has already been accredited. This case adds to other open fronts against the company. In 2024, another federal court had already declared that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the searches market, a process that also remains open waiting for possible corrective measures to be decided. In addition, the company has been sued in other states for the control of its application store, while the United States Government has also brought Apple, Amazon and Meta in parallel causes. Together, this new ruling against Google reinforces an idea that a few years ago seemed unthinkable: the era of technological impunity is coming to an end. For the first time in decades, the big digital platforms face not only investigations, but to firm convictions that could change the way they operate on the Internet. Images: Greg Bulla | Rubaitul Azad Images | The United States has tired of the monopolies of great technological ones. And wants to start “chop them” with goal

Justice forces him to block illegal retransmissions of MotoGP

by

In a movement that reminds us a lot of what is happening in these latitudes, Canal+ has made French justice recognize Cloudflare as responsible technical intermediary in its three capacities (DNS, CDN and inverse proxy), forcing it to implement blocks against websites that illegally retransmit the MotoGP 2025. Why is it important. The Judicial Court of Paris feels a European precedent that could well influence the similar conflict that They keep LaLiga and Cloudflare in Spain on the blocking of websites that broadcast matches without rights. The details: The sentence, issued at the end of March and which Xataka It has had access, states that Cloudflare must apply “all appropriate measures” to prevent access from French territory to fourteen concrete websites. The court has dismissed Cloudflare’s arguments about the alleged technical complexity and the excessive cost of applying these blockages. Technology must fulfill within a maximum period of three days after notification, without being fined at the moment. The ruling rejects the limitation of measures requested by Cloudflare and leaves him freedom to choose the technical modalities that he will use to make the blockages. The foundations. The French court has determined that … The DNS services of Cloudflare “allow access to a website thanks to its domain name” through conversion in IP address. Its CDN network “reduces the data transmission time to the user and improves the safety and reliability of web pages”. And defines its inverse proxy service as “a shield between user applications and the litigious site server.” So the sentence concludes that these three capacities fulfill a “transmission function” that justifies the imposition of measures. Meanwhile in Spain. LaLiga has been with legal actions against cloudflare for months for IPS blocks That, according to the entity, they affect “scarcely a few hundred” of legitimate websites, not “millions” as the technological alleges. Cloudflare responded by presenting an incident of nullity against the Spanish sentence, claiming that LaLiga obtained “hiding the foreseeable damage to third parties.” Justice rejected it. The company chaired by Javier Tebas has accused Cloudflare of collaborating “through its technology with the commission of the most serious crimes such as child pornography, pimping, fraud, etc..” Meanwhile in Europe: The legal framework. The French sentence is based on the Sports Code and Intellectual Property regulations, in line with the European Directives on Copyright. The ruling quotes jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice that establishes that an “intermediary” is any person who transmits a commitment committed in a network. And in this case, the judicial “victim” is cloudflare. In Xataka | This is how Ech works, the Technological Shield of Cloudflare that has put the operators between the sword and the wall Outstanding image | MotoGP, Cloudflare

Justice rejects its demand against LaLiga for the mass blocking of websites

by

The Spanish justice has dismissed the different nullity incidents filed independently by Cloudflare, Rootedcon and other plaintiffs against LaLiga, giving the reason to the organization chaired by Javier Tebas in their strategy to combat the illegal broadcasts of football matches. What has happened. The court has rejected The attempt to cancel the 2022 sentence which allows LaLiga to order the blockade of IP addresses through the operators. All the plaintiffs must assume the costs of the judicial process, without any possibility of any ordinary appeal. Why it is important. The decision reinforces LaLiga in its fight against illegal broadcasts, but maintains the controversy over The mass blocking of thousands of legitimate websites that share infrastructure with websites that illegally transmit football matches. The conflict broke out when Cloudflare implemented an encryption system (Ech) that prevents the operators from seeing the final destination of each connection. In response, LaLiga chose to directly block the cloudflare IPSaffecting thousands of websites without relation to illegal broadcasts. Between the lines. According to the judicial order, to which Xataka It has had access, the plaintiffs presented an incident with “probative orphanage” regarding the accreditation of the damages that allegedly caused the blocking measures. In the judge’s words, this means that “there are no damage caused by the execution of IPS addresses”, but “a measure that prevents access to pirate content.” Vodafone, one of the operators demanded and affected by these blockages, has formulated opposition to the nullity requested, as stated in the judicial order. This means that the operator aligns with LaLiga and considers blockages appropriate during party retransmissions. And now what? Rootedcon has announced in X that will resort to “to all necessary legal means” to reverse this situation, although the car specifies that there is no ordinary appeal. Meanwhile, LaLiga could intensify its blockage strategy, especially during party retransmissions. The plaintiffs included, in addition to Cloudflare and Rootedcon, A Vapasec Technology Consulting, Japonism travel content SC and Frontia SA, among others. Cloudflare says that in Spain there are about 160,000 web pages that use their services. Javier Tebas himself, president of LaLiga, downplay the problem by stating that “It only affects some geeks on the Internet“ The current situation. Affected users can resort to tools such as VPNS or the service Cloudflare Warp To avoid these blockages. This temporary solution, however, does not solve the background problem for business and professional services that can be compromised for their activity during the weekends. This case adds to other similar litigation in several European countries such as France, Italy, Germany and Portugal, where Cloudflare is also facing demands for rights holders For its privacy protection system that, according to its defenders, favors a safer Internet. In Xataka | After almost a decade with the Apple Watch I have spent a Garmin. And I have understood what I was losing me Outstanding image | Gregorio Cavana in Unspash

Justice has sentenced that it is not a secret and have to readmit it

by

In 2026, European regulations It will force all companies to make their salary tables public. That way, it puts itself end to salary secret And all employees can know how much the classmates of the same professional and position charge. However, in 2021, the employee published on his Facebook profile the salary ranges of his company. Then, the company initiated an investigation that ended with the Disciplinary dismissal of the employee by an alleged revelation of secrets. Now the Superior Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands has declared void the dismissal for considering that those data must be public Because they are generic information, condemning the company to compensate the worker who, at that time, was on paternity permission. What happened? As explained in the Resolution 623/2024 From the Superior Court of Justice of Palma de Mallorca, in April 2021 an investigation began that would derive in the disciplinary dismissal against an employee he had published The salary tables For new company cabin crew in a Facebook group with 22,000 users. Although the worker was enjoying his pPaternity ermisowas summoned to a meeting at the company’s headquarters to explain the publication, which he considered an interference in his “legitimate right to permission for paternity without having to address any work activity, including disciplinary.” In June 2021, while he still enjoyed said parental permissionthe company executed the disciplinary dismissal. To do this Workers Statute Regarding professional discretion, pointing out “a transgression of good contractual faith.” Partial acceptance in the first instance. In the first instance, the Social Court No. 4 of Palma validated the disciplinary dismissal in 2021. Although in his judgment he recognized that The salary tables They did not constitute a “strategic secret” for the company. However, he considered that there could be a damage to the company since “the salary is factor hiring determinant“ The first sentence, stressed that the employee’s response to other users on social networks “urged to rethink working in the company”, harming the company’s prestige and, as stated in the sentence, justified the disciplinary measures adopted by the company. This decision forced the worker to resort to the Balearic TSJ to challenge the resolution. Appeal before the Superior Court of Justice. The Balearic TSJ analyzed three key aspects of the case: the nature of the published salary informationthe context of the paternity permit, and possible union reprisals. Regarding the salary tables, the Court said that “no individualized payrolls with personal data were published, but generic information”, discarding violation of the Business Secrets Law on which a good part of the argumentation of the disciplinary dismissal was based. Regarding Paternity periodthe ruling emphasizes that “dismissal was issued during the enjoyment of a fundamental right, which only generates nullity.” He also considered that the fact that the disciplinary process was done in English due because it was an international company, caused “helplessness” for the employee and detected evidence of reprisals for his candidacy to participate in the Company Committee. Salary tables are of public interest. The sentence of the Balearic Islands declared the zero dismissal for two main reasons: first, because “the salary tables are of public interest” and second, for not violating the Right to freedom of expression collected in article 20 of the Constitution. “It is a constitutional right to freedom of expression and information. And even though the brief answer made by the plaintiff indicates a specific figure to contrast, even if it was issued by approximation, no less true is that it accompanied the salary tables in which the members of the social network could contrast the perceptions and the remuneration complements,” the sentence said. Readmitted and compensated. As a consequence, the Superior Court of Justice of Balearic Islands has condemned the company to readmit to the worker again for having fired “having been issued in the period of enjoyment of paternity.” In addition, he condemns the company to compensate the employee with 15,000 euros for moral damages and economic damages derived from dismissal. In Xataka | “Unpresentable” and meaningless: justice declares inadmissible a dismissal for a letter generated with an AI Image | Unspash (Omid Armin), Wikimedia Commons (Blue)

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.