Post by Stefan Halikowski Smith

Honorary Associate Research Professor, Warwick University; Professeur des Universites at Conseil National des Universites; Lehraufbetragter, Universitat Bremen

for my legal eagle friends: how would you argue that one's rights to communicate with the Data Controllers of S.U. to secure data for one's court case (art. 6 of ECHR) but also personal property never returned (art. 8 of ECHR) transcends the strict injunctions of a'gagging order' not to communicate with employees of the same? It's not 'contumelious default' is it (Riddle v Rolls Royce, 2008)? But I'll have to show that. Do 'protective' fundamental rights deserve a higher deference than 'conspiratorial' and 'exclusionary' ones?