Brief Overview of the Legal Instruments and Restrictions for Sharing Data While Complying with the EU Data Protection Law

2016 ◽  
pp. 57-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Mauro ◽  
Debora Stella
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals The European Union and the Search for an International Data Protection Framework

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Data ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
Global Data ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) has supported the growing calls for the creation of an international legal framework to safeguard data protection rights. At the same time, it has worked to spread its data protection law to other regions, and recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have reaffirmed the autonomous nature of EU law and the primacy of EU fundamental rights law. The tension between initiatives to create a global data protection framework and the assertion of EU data protection law raises questions about how the EU can best promote data protection on a global level, and about the EU’s responsibilities to third countries that have adopted its system of data protection.

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?

scholarly journals Criminal justice profiling and EU data protection law: precarious protection from predictive policing

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orla Lynskey
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Predictive Policing ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Specific Assessment ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper examines the application of the latest iterations of EU data protection law – in the General Data Protection Regulation, the Law Enforcement Directive and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU – to the use of predictive policing technologies. It suggests that the protection offered by this legal framework to those impacted by predictive policing technologies is, at best, precarious. Whether predictive policing technologies fall within the scope of the data protection rules is uncertain, even in light of the expansive interpretation of these rules by the Court of Justice of the EU. Such a determination would require a context-specific assessment that individuals will be ill-placed to conduct. Moreover, even should the rules apply, the substantive protection offered by the prohibition against automated decision-making can be easily sidestepped and is subject to significant caveats. Again, this points to the conclusion that the protection offered by this framework may be more illusory than real. This being so, there are some fundamental questions to be answered – including the question of whether we should be building predictive policing technologies at all.

scholarly journals The ‘Europeanisation’ of Data Protection Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 252-286
Author(s):  
Orla LYNSKEY
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
National Authority ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEU data protection law has, to date, been monitored and enforced in a decentralised way by independent supervisory authorities in each Member State. While the independence of these supervisory authorities is an essential element of EU data protection law, this decentralised governance structure has led to competing claims from supervisory authorities regarding the national law applicable to a data processing operation and the national authority responsible for enforcing the data protection rules. These competing claims – evident in investigations conducted into the data protection compliance of Google and Facebook – jeopardise the objectives of the EU data protection regime. The new General Data Protection Regulation will revolutionise data protection governance by providing for a centralised decision-making body, the European Data Protection Board. While this agency will ensure the ‘Europeanisation’ of data protection law, given the nature and the extent of this Board’s powers, it marks another significant shift in the EU’s agency-creating process and must, therefore, also be considered in its broader EU context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document