{"id":574960,"date":"2026-04-16T05:09:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T03:09:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T05:09:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T03:09:24","slug":"robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/","title":{"rendered":"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. The Applicant made six applications to the Tribunal on form GRC3 pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (\u201c2018 Act\u201d). They are said to relate to five data subject access requests to the Trustees of the Railways Pension Scheme (\u201cTRPS\u201d), that were subject to complaints to the Information Commissioner (\u201cICO\u201d) under reference number IC-346185-Y7S4. Whilst the ICO disputes the nature of the applications as data subject access requests, the abbreviation \u201cDSAR\u201d is used hereafter for ease of reference. 2. Three of the applications were allocated case numbers by the Tribunal as below: FT\/EA\/2025\/0060\/GDPR; FT\/EA\/2025\/0105\/GDPR; and FT\/EA\/2025\/0138\/GDPR. 3. Case no. FT\/EA\/2025\/0060\/GDPR (\u201c0060\u201d) was struck out by order of this Tribunal dated 22 April 2025 as having no reasonable prospect of success. This followed the ICO having issued a decision on the complaint on 10 February 2025. By Case Management Directions dated 30 April 2025 (\u201cthe CMD\u201d), the Tribunal consolidated the remaining applications under a single case number FT\/EA\/2025\/0105\/GDPR (\u201c0105\u201d). 4. The Applicant disputed the ICO\u2019s contention that the remaining applications are a duplicate of 0060, or outside the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction. Given the lack of clarity in the applications, the Tribunal was unable to clearly identify if there was duplication or if there was any matter that the Tribunal can address. Therefore, the CMD required the Applicant to provide a consolidated summary of the specific complaints, which the Applicant claims the Respondent has not progressed. The summary was required to identify: (i) the date of the complaint (ii) the application date to the Tribunal (iii) the information requested in the complaint, and (iv) details of any response received. Applicant\u2019s Requests 5. The Applicant provided a 6-page response on 6 May 2025. The Applicant persists with details of case 0060, which the Tribunal has already disposed of. This was DSAR 1. I have thoroughly considered the content of the remaining response. I set out the requests in full, to which the Applicant says that no response has been received from the TRPS: 5.1 DSAR 2 \u2013 complaint to ICO on 14 January 2025 and to Tribunal on 3 March 2025 The applicant requests full details of all alterations and amendments which have been made to his protected person relevant pension rights since being made compulsorily redundant on the 26th March 1994 in both the BRPS and the RPS. Without prejudice to the generality thereof it is submitted that this would include the following: (1) Purported omission of the right of arbitration in articles 13 and 14 the Protection Order by section 245(7) of the Transport Act 2000. (2) Alteration by the Trustees of the Incapacity provisions. (3) Whether the statutory override regarding scheme members with protected persons status in the Pensions Bill 2013\/14 regarding the introduction of a single-tier State Pension, replacing the current two-tier state pension, for future pensioners from April 2016 has been applied so far as the applicant as a railway protected person is concerned. (4) Increasing the minimum age of entitlement to deferred benefits to over age 50. (5) Increase in normal retirement age. (6) Changing the Index of Retail Prices to the Consumer Prices Index. (7) Alleged breach of the Delegation Provisions in the Pension Trust. (8) Withdrawal of staff travel facilities on being made compulsorily redundant. (9) Denial of relevant pension rights because the effective date of the Protection Order was after the date that the applicant was made compulsorily redundant notwithstanding that the provisions in the Protection Order are applicable from the date of the Railways Act 1993 having specific regard to Schedule 11 paragraphs 6(3) (a) and (b) and that by virtue of the same the applicant is a protected person with relevant pension rights and also, that the Transfer Order allocated the applicant to the RPS which incorporated the Protection Order. 5.2 DSAR 3 \u2013 complaint to ICO on 16 January 2025 and to Tribunal on 10 March 2025 This DSAR stems from the fact that the applicant is not aware of the information concerning his protected person relevant pension rights provisions the subject of this request. Correspondence has been received from the Scheme advising of the enactment of Section 245(7) of the Transport Act 2000 and requiring its application. The applicant requests full details of any involvement by the Scheme regarding the enactment of Section 245(7) of the Transport Act 2000 5.3 DSAR 4 \u2013 complaint to ICO on 28 January 2025 and to Tribunal on 27 March 2025 The applicant protected person relevant pension rights as detailed above have not been applied in respect of his pension scheme benefits since they were enacted and the applicant therefore requests the Trustee to: (1) fully explain the reason why. (2) detail when such provisions will be applied in respect of his scheme benefits. (3) fully explain how it is proposed to make good all losses to the applicant including the payment of interest arising out of or in connection with the same. (4) confirm that it will be determined which members of the pension scheme are responsible for the failure to apply the protected person relevant pension rights provisions. (5) confirm whether any persons the subject of the above will be held personally accountable for the same and, if not, why not, having specific regard to the provisions in the pension scheme. 5.4 DSAR 5 \u2013 complaint to ICO on 27 February 2025 and to Tribunal 8 & 10 April 2025 The respondent should be fully conversant with all of the statutory provisions and documentation concerning the RPS and has contended that the statutory relevant pension right to arbitration has been omitted and that complaints should be submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman. As detailed above it is alleged that section 245(7) is contrary to and in breach of the following: (1) The assurance given by the Secretary of State regarding the allocation of provisions to accord with the Acquired Rights Directive during the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill having specific regard to item 6 thereof. (2) Paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 11 of the Railways Act 1993. (3) Paragraphs 3(3) and 6(2) of Schedule 11 of the Railways Act 1993. (4) Articles 1(2) definition of relevant pension rights, 6(1) and 8(1) of the Protection Order. (5) Railways Pension Scheme clauses 2B, 2D, 2G, 7H, 13C(iii) and 13C(iv). The applicant requests the respondent to advise the basis on which it considers that the right to arbitration has been omitted contrary to and in breach of all of the above and that complaints should be submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman. The ICO\u2019s Reply 6. The ICO replied on 2 June 2025. The ICO wished to clarify at the outset that it was the investigating case officer\u2019s view that the requests made by the Applicant to TRPS do not constitute subject access requests within the definition of the 2018 Act and the UK GDPR. This is because they do not relate to the Applicant\u2019s personal data. Instead, the requests concern general information about the pension scheme and individuals classified as 'protected persons'. In summary, the ICO concludes: a) The Applicant submitted four information requests DSAR 1 to 4 prior to its outcome letter of 7 February 2025. All four were considered as part of the decision. These requests do not constitute valid DSARs. b) A fifth request (DSAR 5) was submitted after the 7 February 2025 outcome. The request was also reviewed and was found not to relate to the Applicant\u2019s personal data, but general information about the pension scheme. c) A case review was conducted and the ICO has clearly set out its position that the requests do not fall within the scope of subject access rights. No further action is considered necessary. d) The ICO has issued both an initial outcome on 7 February 2025 and a review outcome on 19 May 2025, among other clarifying correspondence. There is no basis for the Tribunal to make an order under section 166 of the 2018 Act. 7. The ICO repeats its position that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The Tribunal is invited to strike out the proceedings under either rule 8(2)(a)\/and or 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal\u2019s Rules. Consideration and Decision 8. As the sixth GRC3 form sent to the Tribunal on 10 April 2025 was a duplicate of the fifth application submitted on 8 April 2025, it must be struck out for that reason alone. 9. Section 165 of the 2018 Act sets out the right of data subjects to complain to the ICO \u201cif the data subject considers, in connection with personal data relating to him or her, there is an infringement of the UK GDPR\u201d. A \u201cdata subject\u201d means the identified or identifiable living individual to whom personal data relates (section 3(2)). The term \u201cpersonal data\u201d means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual (subject to subsection (14)(c)). Subsection (14)(c) refers to personal data and processing to which Part 2, 3 or 4 applies. Part 2 concerns \u2018general processing\u2019 and is relevant to most processing of personal data. 10. There is only limited scope to appeal to the Tribunal. Under section 166, a data subject can make an application to this Tribunal for an order as follows: 166 Orders to progress complaints (1) This section applies where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the UK GDPR, the Commissioner \u2013 (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, (b) fails to provide the complainant with information about progress on the complaint, or of the outcome of the complaint, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning when the Commissioner received the complaint, or (c) if the Commissioner's consideration of the complaint is not concluded during that period, fails to provide the complainant with such information during a subsequent period of 3 months. (2) The Tribunal may, on an application by the data subject, make an order requiring the Commissioner \u2013 (a) to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, (b) to inform the complainant of progress on the complaint, or of the outcome of the complaint, within a period specified in the order. 11. The Tribunal can only make an order under section 166(2) if the Applicant has made a complaint under section 165 of the 2018 Act (or Article 77) and one of the conditions at section 166(1)(a), (b) or (c) is met. 12. Having carefully considered the applications, the requests raise questions about the management of the pension scheme. I conclude that none of the Applicant\u2019s requests are for \u201cpersonal data\u201d (as defined) to be captured by section 165 of the 2018 Act. As such, section 166 is not engaged for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction in relation to these complaints. 13. Even if any part of the requests did concern \u201cpersonal data\u201d, section 166 is limited to procedural failings of the ICO. The ICO is clear that its letter of 7 February 2025 responded not only to DSAR 1 (considered in case 0060) but also to DSAR 2, 3 and 4. I have no reason to come to a contrary view. The ICO responded to the Applicant\u2019s ongoing concerns about the pension scheme in letters of 8 and 17 April 2025. All the DSARs were reviewed on 19 May 2025. The ICO\u2019s consideration of the complaints has thus been concluded, and the Tribunal cannot make an order under section 166. 14. In the circumstances, I consider that there is no reasonable prospect of the Applicant\u2019s case, or part of it succeeding, and so the remaining proceedings consolidated under case 0105 shall be struck out. SignedJudge SawardDate: 17 June 2025<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The Applicant made six applications to the Tribunal on form GRC3 pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (\u201c2018 Act\u201d). They are said to relate to five data subject access requests to the Trustees of the Railways Pension Scheme (\u201cTRPS\u201d), that were subject to complaints to the Information Commissioner (\u201cICO\u201d) under reference number IC-346185-Y7S4. Whilst the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7625],"kji_keyword":[7875,11220,7691,7661,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-574960","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-information-rights","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-commercial","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-pension","kji_keyword-requests","kji_keyword-section","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nRobert Brialey v Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. The Applicant made six applications to the Tribunal on form GRC3 pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (\u201c2018 Act\u201d). They are said to relate to five data subject access requests to the Trustees of the Railways Pension Scheme (\u201cTRPS\u201d), that were subject to complaints to the Information Commissioner (\u201cICO\u201d) under reference number IC-346185-Y7S4. Whilst the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"name\":\"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T03:09:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner","og_description":"1. The Applicant made six applications to the Tribunal on form GRC3 pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (\u201c2018 Act\u201d). They are said to relate to five data subject access requests to the Trustees of the Railways Pension Scheme (\u201cTRPS\u201d), that were subject to complaints to the Information Commissioner (\u201cICO\u201d) under reference number IC-346185-Y7S4. Whilst the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"9 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/","name":"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T03:09:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/robert-brialey-v-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Robert Brialey v Information Commissioner"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/574960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=574960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=574960"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=574960"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=574960"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=574960"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=574960"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=574960"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=574960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}