The Court of Justice of the European Union, Data Retention and the Rights to Data Protection and Privacy – Where Are We Now?

2015 ◽  
pp. 73-86
Author(s):  
Felix Bieker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Union Data

scholarly journals El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como juez garante de la privacidad en Internet

2017 ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Artemi Rallo Lombarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
It Services ◽  
Origin And Evolution ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
Global Impact ◽  
Safe Harbour ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Standards

El origen y evolución del derecho a la protección de datos personales tiene una inequívoca impronta europea. El impacto mundial de esta normativa originariamente europea ha supuesto la proliferación de leyes nacionales de protección de datos en el resto de los continentes y ha obligado a los servicios tecnológicos globales —independientemente de su origen geográfico— a adecuarse a la normativa europea de protección de datos. En particular, estos servicios tecnológicos han tenido que adaptarse a la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre protección de la privacidad en Internet. Este artículo evidenciará el impacto global de esta jurisprudencia y la inevitable fuerza expansiva extra europea de tres renombradas sentencias recientes del TJUE: Caso Digital Rights (Directiva conservación de datos), Caso Google (derecho al olvido) y Caso Facebook (Safe Harbour). Estas sentencias marcan un hito en la evolución de la protección de los datos personales por su impacto mundial y, en consecuencia, por la expansión de los estándares europeos de protección al resto del planeta.The origin and evolution of the data protection right has a clear European leadership. The global impact of this originally European legislalion has led to the proliferation of national laws for the protection of data in the rest of the continents and has forced global technology services —regardless of their geographical origin— to adapt to European data protection standards. In particular, these IT services have been adapted to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the privacy protection on the Internet. This article will demonstrate the extra European impact of three renowned recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Case Digital Rights (Data Retention Directive), Case Google (Right to be Forgotten) and Case Facebook (Safe Harbour). These rulings are a milestone in the evolution of the data protection because of its global impact and, consequently, by the transference of the European standards of data protection to the rest of the planet.

scholarly journals The European Union’s Passenger Name Record Data Directive 2016/681: Is it Fit for Purpose?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lowe
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Fit For Purpose

In 2016 the European Union (eu) introduced a Passenger Name Record Data (pnr) Directive. There has been controversy in the eu over the acquisition and sharing of pnr data, related mainly to the lack of safeguards and protection of personal data protection. This article examines these issues related to earlier eu pnr agreements with third countries and why previous eu attempts to legislate in this area failed. By drawing a comparison with the 2011 pnr Directive proposal, the article argues that by meeting the strict eu law on data protection as well as being necessary to assist in preventing and detecting acts of terrorism and serious crime it is submitted the 2016 Directive is fit for purpose and able to withstand scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

scholarly journals ESTUDO SOBRE A REALIZAÇÃO DO DIREITO DA PROTECÇÃO DE DADOS PESSOAIS ATRAVÉS DA JURISPRUDÊNCIA DO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita De Sousa Costa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Data ◽  
Data Protection Law

[PT]No presente texto, apresentamos as grandes linhas de aplicação do direito europeu da protecção de dados conforme gizadas pela jurisprudência do TJUE, com o objectivo de demonstrar como e em que medida este Tribunal modelou – e continua a modelar – o quadro jurídico em vigor, na certeza de que aquela jurisprudência impõe um conjunto de desafios determinantes para a realização material do direito europeu da protecção de dados pessoais. [ESP]Este texto presenta las líneas generales de la aplicación de la legislación europea de protección de datos tal como se establece en la jurisprudencia del TJUE, con el objetivo de demostrar cómo y en qué medida este Tribunal ha configurado -y sigue configurando- el marco jurídico vigente, con la certeza de que la dicha jurisprudencia plantea una serie de retos cruciales para la aplicación material del derecho europeo de la protección de datos personales. [ENG]This text outlines the implementation of the European data protection law as laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with the aim of demonstrating how and to what extent the Court has shaped – and continues to shape – the current legal framework. The case-law analysed points out a plethora of challenges which are key to the implementation of the European personal data protection law.

scholarly journals L’invalidità del Safe Harbor Agreement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiana Accardo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Safe Harbor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this article is that to explain the impact of the landmark decision Schrems c. Data Protection Commissioner [Ireland] - delivered on 7 October 2015 (Case C-362/2014 EU) by the Court of Justice - on the European scenario. Starting from a brief analysis of the major outcomes originated from the pronunciation of the Court of Justice, then it tries to study the level of criticality that the Safe Harbor Agreement and the subsequently adequacy Commission decision 2000/520/EC – that has been invalidated with Schrems judgment – have provoked before this pronunciation on the matter of safeguarding personal privacy of european citizens when their personal data are transferred outside the European Union, in particular the reference is at the US context. Moreover it focuses on the most important aspects of the new EU-US agreement called Privacy Shield: it can be really considered the safer solution for data sharing in the light of the closer implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which will take the place of the Directive 95 /46/CE on the EU data protection law?

The Right To Be Forgotten

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.

Assessing the Evaluation of the EC Data Retention Directive

2012 ◽  
pp. 67-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nóra Ní Loideain
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Member State ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Eu

The focus of this chapter is the first evaluation of European legislation designed to harmonise domestic laws on the retention of telecommunications data for the purpose of assisting law enforcement efforts. The European Union introduced the EC Data Retention Directive in 2006. This Directive requires the retention of every European citizen’s communications data for up to two years for the purpose of investigation, detection, and prosecution of serious crime, as defined by each Member State in their domestic legislation. The Directive was the source of considerable unease amongst legislators, Data Protection authorities, and the private sector. This chapter analyses the results provided in this evaluation on the use and operation of the Directive by individual Member States of the EU.

scholarly journals Right to be forgotten: european data imperialism, national privilege, or universal human right?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-152
Author(s):  
Oskar J. Gstrein
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Data ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The Digital Age has fundamentally reshaped the preconditions for privacy and freedom of expression. This transpires in the debate about a "right to be forgotten". While the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in "Google Spain" touches upon the underlying issue of how increasing amounts of personal data affects individuals over time, the topic has also become one of the salient problems of Internet Governance. On 24th September 2019 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in "Google vs CNIL" (C-507/17) which was supposed to clarify the territorial scope of the right. However, this judgment has raised doubts about the enforceability of the General Data Protection Regulation, and reveals the complex, multi-layered governance structure of the European Union. Acknowledging such complexity at a substantive and institutional level, this article starts by analysing the judgment. Additionally, to better understand the current situation in the European Union and its member states, recently produced draft guidelines by the European Data Protection Board are presented and discussed, as well as two judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the European developments are put in international context. Finally, the insights from these sections are combined which allows to develop several conceptual ideas. In conclusion, it is argued that the right to be forgotten remains complex and evolving. Its success depends on effective multi-layer and multistakeholder interaction. In this sense, it has become a prominent study object that reveals potential venues and pitfalls on a path towards more sophisticated data protection frameworks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document