Is &quot;elektronische Post&quot; (&#167; 5 Telemediengesetz) necessarily email? § 5 of the Telemediengesetz (German) lists what, for instance, website providers have to include in the typically called Impressum of the website. The second sentence of (1) is: Angaben, die eine schnelle elektronische Kontaktaufnahme und unmittelbare Kommunikation mit ihnen ermöglichen, einschließlich der Adresse der elektronischen Post, Which according to cgerli.org (PDF) translates to: details which permit rapid electronic contact and direct communication with them, including the electronic mail address, Does the term elektronische Post (which translates to electronic mail) necessarily mean email (via SMTP)? Of course one would immediately think of email (and some might use this term as synonym for &quot;E-Mail&quot;, but it’s not really idiomatic), but then why doesn’t it say &quot;E-Mail&quot; or &quot;SMTP&quot;? Because it doesn’t explicitly say so, my assumption is that it doesn’t have to be an email address, but just some address that allows to communicate electronically. Like a term for a category of communication protocols (i.e., protocols which allow to send messages in electronic form) instead of refering to the specific SMTP. (Which would make sense, because email might lose popularity, and then the law wouldn’t have to be updated.) So, must it be an email address (RFC 6068) or may it be an address for a different protocol that allows to send/receive messages in the Internet?
This question was content of a judgement: KG · Urteil vom 7. Mai 2013 · Az. 5 U 32/12 The First maxim is important: "Die nach § 5 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 TMG bestehende Pflicht zur Angabe der "Adresse der elektronischen Post" meint die Angabe der E-Mail-Anschrift." Translation: The existing duty for indication of the "address of electronic mail" (or like your translation: electronic mail address) according to § 5 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 TMG means the E-Mail-Address. So the answer is YES.
A declaration of intent among absent people becomes effective as soon as it reaches the recipient, § 130 Ⅰ 1 BGB. To reach the recipient means the declaration of intent must under normal circumstances (e. g. not on statutory holidays), get into the “territory” of the recipient (for example a mailbox), and be physically available and intelligible (e. g. readable script [no water/rain damage]). Note, it is not necessary that the recipient actually reads your letter, but it must be possible. Generally, it is presumed you check your mailbox at least once a day, so mail is considered to be delivered the next (business) day unless it arrived/was opened earlier. Ultimately, if it matters, you’ll need to prove when your declaration of intent reached the recipient. I have sent it on February end and if the HR has not received it on time even after notifying then how is it my mistake? It is your risk who you entrust with delivery. It is not the recipient’s fault if you chose an untrustworthy or too slow carrier. Why should I serve a longer notice period? Because you signed the employment contract. Seriously, your employer has a protected interest to trust in you fulfilling your part of the agreement. Business needs a certain level of predictability, so they can organize a replacement employee. If they don’t need or “don’t like” you, you can still ask to be dismissed earlier via a mutual Aufhebungsvertrag, § 311 Ⅰ BGB. Does the notice to the recipient to pick up the post count as delivered? No, a notification about registered mail being available for pickup is not a substitute for your declaration of intent. Again, it must be possible for the recipient to identify the message.
Canada's anti-spam legislation (CASL)1 at the time was more strict than the regulations in other countries (e.g. CAN-SPAM Act in the U.S.). Notably, it applied to all emails sent to people in Canada, including those sent from other countries (of course, likelihood of enforcement is another issue). In general, a commercial electronic message can only be sent to users with their consent (express consent to receive messages, or implied consent through e.g. club membership or existing business relationships). Additionally, receivers must be able to unsubscribe or opt out. What part is mandatory? It is not mandatory in the sense it is required by law. But rather Microsoft considers that the communication is essential to its service provided to the user. If you want to opt out this kind of communication, Microsoft is signaling that it can/will end the customer relationship, that is, the only way user can opt out is to stop using the relevant service. The term &quot;mandatory service communication&quot; is and was used in Microsoft's Privacy Statement and other relevant user agreements Your communications preferences You can choose whether you wish to receive promotional communications from Microsoft by email, SMS, physical mail, and telephone. If you receive promotional email or SMS messages from us and would like to opt out, you can do so by following the directions in that message. You can also make choices about the receipt of promotional emails, telephone calls, and post by signing in with your personal Microsoft account, and viewing your communication permissions where you can update contact information, manage Microsoft-wide contact preferences, opt out of email subscriptions and choose whether to share your contact information with Microsoft partners. If you do not have a personal Microsoft account, you can manage your Microsoft email contact preferences by using this web form. These choices do not apply to mandatory service communications that are part of certain Microsoft products, programmes, activities or to surveys or other informational communications that have their own unsubscribe method. https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-CA/privacystatement CASL does not require the sender to signal if it's necessary to its contract or not, but it does require the sender to identify the opting-out mechanism. In this case, the statement informs the user that this particular communication is integral to its service and cannot be opt out separately from the service. Unlike the later European GDPR where a necessity test is used, CASL does not have this requirement and the contractual parties can define if a communication is integral as they want by means of express consent via user agreements (subject to other federal and provincial data protection rules). Or its really long long title: An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act
No. You have to ask for specific permission to send marketing emails, and can't make it a condition of making a purchase since marketing emails are clearly not necessary for that. When accepting the terms you need a separate tick box for marketing emails, and it must be unticked by default (opt-in).
Under the GDPR, consent is not the only legal basis that allows processing of your personal data. Other legal bases such as legitimate interest exist as well. So the question is: does the company have a legitimate interest to send you these emails? The answer is that this case is more about direct marketing, less about personal data. The circumstances under which direct marketing emails can be sent are covered by the ePrivacy directive, which is implemented in the UK via PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003). PECR and ePrivacy introduce a concept known as soft opt-in: where a natural or legal person obtains from its customers their electronic contact details for electronic mail, in the context of the sale of a product or a service, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, the same natural or legal person may use these electronic contact details for direct marketing of its own similar products or services provided that customers clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object, free of charge and in an easy manner, to such use of electronic contact details when they are collected and on the occasion of each message in case the customer has not initially refused such use. (ePrivacy Directive, Art 13(2)) In plain language, they are allowed to send unsolicited marketing emails to existing customers, under the following restrictions: this only applies to customer relationships the marketing must be for similar products or services you must be able to object to further messages, i.e. unsubscribe upon collection of contact details you were given the opportunity to opt out
Generally, you are permitted to contact people for whatever reason you would like. However, I would caution that you familiarise yourself with the various spam laws they have been enacted in your jurisdiction and also in those of your prospective recipients. Some of these laws merely impose conditions on the manner in which you can send unsolicited email, others prohibit it in certain circumstances. I don't intend to traverse each jurisdiction, but Wikipedia has an apparently comprehensive list. There's no reason why you can't refer to your employer, but you should note the relevant advertising and libel law in your jurisdiction and ensure you don't run afoul of these. Finally, consider whether you are breaching any terms of use of the site from which you are obtaining this data. Although you've mentioned it's publicly available, and the enforceability of browsewrap agreements is questionable, it may be legal hassle you don't want to incur.
That is a very broad clause, broader than the default US rule for copyright, for example. (I know the question asked about the UK, I just happen to know the US copyright rule.) It would seem on the face of it to include independent research on a subject totally unrelated to the person's employment, done off the company's premises and not during normal work hours, but while the person was an employee.. Indeed it would arguably include the copyright to a novel written off premises and during off hours. Use of "course of employment" (instead of "term") would improve the provision. so would "as a part of his or her employment" or "closely related to the subject of his or her employment". Another possible restriction would be "Using the Company's facilities and/or equipment, or during normal working hours". However, my experience is that an employer will have drafted whatever language it uses through its company lawyer, and will be quite unwilling to alter it in any way. A prospective employee will probably be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it choice unless that person is a nearly indispensable figure to the company. One could send the company a certified letter saying, "When i signed the contract agreeing to {company language} I did not intend to include any developments made off company premises, not using company equipment, and unrelated to the subject or scope of my employment. I retain full rights to any such developments." Such a letter would help establish that there was no meeting of the minds to assign such non-employment-related developments or IP to the Company. How much weight it would have if the rights to such developments were the subject of a court case I am not sure.
Each directives page on eur-lex has a "national transposition" page. For example, directive 2009/65/EC, concerning UCITS, is available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:32009L0065. There is a navigation box at the top left with several relevant pages: Text Document information Procedure National transposition Summary of legislation (Before the recent site redesign, these were shown as tabs across the top of the page, so for the lack of a better term, I will call these "tabs.") The Document information tab shows, among other metadata, relationships with other EU acts. One useful section on this page is the All consolidated versions section, which is a set of links to consolidated versions of the document, indicated by date. The answer to your question is the National transposition tab, which shows "National transposition measures communicated by the Member States." It is worth noting the disclaimer: The member states bear sole responsibility for all information on this site provided by them on the transposition of EU law into national law. This does not, however, prejudice the results of the verification by the Commission of the completeness and correctness of the transposition of EU law into national law as formally notified to it by the member states. The collection National transposition measures is updated weekly. The list of national acts is in the form of links, which lead to pages that seem designed to present the text of the national legislation, but in the examples I have checked say nothing more than "Text is not available." Perhaps there are some instances, or will be in the future, where these contain links to national legal information sites. As it is, there is enough information to enable one to search the national sites to find the relevant legislation.