scholarly journals Data protection authority perspectives on the impact of data protection reform on cooperation in the EU

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barnard-Wills ◽  
Cristina Pauner Chulvi ◽  
Paul De Hert

Subject Action by European regulators and courts against US technology firms. Significance The Hamburg state data protection authority this month rejected an appeal by Google against the authority's decision requiring changes to Google's handling of users' personal data. This latest action comes as negotiations on new EU data-protection rules have reached a critical stage. These are raising questions about the transatlantic handling of personal data, an increasingly important resource commercially and politically. Impacts Policy differences within the EU will make it hard for the bloc to reach agreement on its proposed new data-protection rules this year. Given that user adaptation to any new EU regime will take at least two years, full compliance will not occur before 2018. Data protection will remain the most sensitive issues in transatlantic tensions over internet governance. Privacy and data-protection campaigners will try to block any transatlantic agreements on these issues, via legislative or judicial means.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199492
Author(s):  
Catherine Van de Heyning

The submission discusses the provisions in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement on data protection as well as the consequences for the exchange of passenger name record data in the field of criminal and judicial cooperation. The author concludes that the impact of the Agreement will depend on the resolvement of the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of protection of personal data equivalent to the EU’s in order to reach an adequacy decision.


Author(s):  
Juan Fernando López Aguilar

Desde los primeros capítulos de la construcción europea con el Tratado de Roma (1957) que cumple 60 años, la jurisprudencia dictada por el Tribunal de Justicia ha sido determinante para la dimensión constitucional del ordenamiento comunitario. En una secuencia de decisiones históricas, el TJ ha afirmado su primacía, eficacia vinculante y su unidad garantizando su interpretación y aplicación uniforme, pero también, sobre todo, los derechos fundamentales dimanantes de las tradiciones constitucionales comunes como fuente del Derecho europeo (principios generales). Esta doctrina se consolida en Derecho positivo, al fin, con la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa (TL) en 2009, incorporando el TUE, el TFUE, y, relevantemente, la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE (CDFUE) con el «mismo valor jurídico que los Tratados» y, consiguientemente, parámetro de validez de todo el Derecho derivado, así como de enjuiciamiento de la compatibilidad de la legislación de los EE.MM con el Derecho europeo.La doctrina del TJUE sobre derechos fundamentales ha sido su proyección sobre la protección de datos en el marco de los derechos a la vida privada, a la privacidad frente a la transferencia electrónica de datos y al acceso a la tutela judicial de estos derechos (art. 7, 8 y 47 CDFUE). En ella conjuga los principios de reserva de ley (respetando su contenido esencial) y de proporcionalidad y necesidad de las medidas que les afecten. Pero, además, esta doctrina ha adquirido un impacto decisivo en la articulación jurídica de la relación transatlántica entre la UE y EEUU, confrontando los estándares de protección de datos a ambos lados del Atlántico e imponiendo garantías de un «nivel de protección adecuado» para los ciudadanos europeos. Este artículo examina el impacto de dos recientes sentencias relevantes del TJ —Asunto Digital Rights Ireland (2014) y Asunto Schrems (2015)— sobre el Derecho derivado (Directiva de Conservación de Datos de 2006, Directiva de Protección de Datos de 1995, y Decisión de «adecuación» de la Comisión Europea de 2000) y sobre instrumentos de Derecho internacional (Acuerdo Safe Harbour) entre la UE y EEUU. Impone, como consecuencia, no sólo una negociación que repare las deficiencias detectadas en ambas resoluciones sino una actualización del Derecho europeo (nuevo Data Protection Package en 2016) y una novedosa Ley federal de EEUU que por primera vez ofrece a los ciudadanos europeos acceso al sistema de recursos judiciales ante los tribunales estadounidenses en la defensa del derecho a la protección de datos (Judicial Redress Act, 2016).Right from the first very chapters of the European construction under the Treaty of Rome (1957), which turns 60 this year 2017, the jurisprudence by the Court of Justice has truly been decisive to shape the constitutional dimension of the European Community legal order. In a series of historical decisions, the CJEU has affirmed its primacy, its binding efficacy and unity, while guaranteeing its uniform interpretation and implementation. But it has also, above all, enshrined the fundamental rights resulting from the common constitutional traditions as a source of European Law (i.e general principles). This legal doctrine has been ultimately consolidated in positive Law, finally, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (TL) in 2009, incorporating the TEU, the TFEU and, most notably, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) with the «same legal value as the Treaties». Charter Fundamental Rights have turned to be, consequently, a parameter for examining the validity of secondary EU legislation, as well as for scrutinizing and reviewing the standard of compatibility of the national legislation of EU Member States with European law. The legal doctrine of the ECJ on fundamental rights has been particularly relevant in its impact on the data protection in the framework of the rights to privacy, privacy with regard to the electronic data transfer, and access to judicial protection of these rights (art. 7, 8 and 47 CFREU). It combines the principles of reservation of law (in due respect of its essential content) as well as proportionality and necessity for legislative measures that might affect them. But, moreover, this doctrine has had a decisive impact on the legal articulation of the so-called transatlantic partnership between the EU and the US, confronting data protection standards on both sides of the Atlantic and imposing guarantees of an «adequate level of protection» for all European citizens. This paper explores the impact of two recent relevant decisions by the ECJ — its rulings on Digital Rights Ireland case (2014) and on the Schrems case (2015) — upon the secondary EU legislation (Data Retention Directive of 2006, Data Protection Directive of 1995, and the «adequacy» Decision of the European Commission of 2000), as well as upon International Law instruments (Safe Harbour Agreement) between the EU and the US. It imposes, as a consequence, not only a negotiation that remedies the shortcomings detected in both decisions, but also a compelling updating of European law itself (new Data Protection Package in 2016) and a new US federal law, which, for the first time ever, provides European citizens with access to judicial remedies in U.S. Courts in defending their right to data protection (Judicial Redress Act, 2016).


2020 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 03006
Author(s):  
Irena Nesterova

The growing use of facial recognition technologies has put them under the regulatory spotlight all around the world. The EU considers to regulate facial regulation technologies as a part of initiative of creating ethical and legal framework for trustworthy artificial intelligence. These technologies are attracting attention of the EU data protection authorities, e.g. in Sweden and the UK. In May, San Francisco was the first city in the US to ban police and other government agencies from using facial recognition technology, soon followed by other US cities. The paper aims to analyze the impact of facial recognition technology on the fundamental rights and values as well as the development of its regulation in Europe and the US. The paper will reveal how these technologies may significantly undermine fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy, and may lead to prejudice and discrimination. Moreover, alongside the risks to fundamental rights a wider impact of these surveillance technologies on democracy and the rule of law needs to be assessed. Although the existing laws, in particular the EU General Data Protection Regulation already imposes significant requirements, there is a need for further guidance and clear regulatory framework to ensure trustworthy use of facial recognition technology.


Author(s):  
Marian Arning ◽  
Nikolaus Forgó ◽  
Tina Krügel

In order to protect the privacy of participating patients in multicentric genetic research projects and to improve the working conditions for researchers in such projects a data protection framework needs to be installed. In the first place, all genetic data processed in the project has to be pseudonymized. In addition to that, contracts have to be concluded between the project and each project partner to guarantee that genetic data are used only within the project and that each partner complies with data security standards. Furthermore, a central data protection authority has to be installed in the project to control the partners' compliance with these contracts and to serve as a central contact point for participants. If these conditions are fulfilled, only (de facto) anonymous data are used in the project, so that data protection legislation is not directly applicable. Second, each participant has to sign a special consent form for ethical reasons and as a fallback solution if the pseudonymization of the genetic data fails. With this safety net it is possible to protect the participants' privacy and to improve the working conditions for researchers.


Author(s):  
Fabiana Accardo

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?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document