{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","title":"Ed Ryland v The Information Commissioner","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ddw4ibaY6w\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ed-ryland-v-the-information-commissioner\/\">Ed Ryland v The Information Commissioner<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ed-ryland-v-the-information-commissioner\/embed\/#?secret=ddw4ibaY6w\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a Ed Ryland v The Information Commissioner \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"ddw4ibaY6w\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"1. The appeal is refused. 2. Decision Notice dated 3 April 2023 is upheld. REASONS Mode of hearing 3. The hearing was convened remotely by CVP on 11 March 2024. All persons joined the hearing remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that this constituted an open hearing in public within the meaning of rule 35A (3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier..."}