scholarly journals A New Data Protection Development in The EU Judicial and Criminal Area

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-149
Author(s):  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Gergana Georgieva
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Significant Progress ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Efficient Measure ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The following article is dedicated to a new data protection regime in the European Union, in particular the Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of natural persons regarding processing of personal data by authorities aiming at prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime offences, including execution of criminal penalties. For this purpose, the authors look first at the data protection within the Prüm framework as well as at the relevant provisions of Lisbon Treaty. Тhe important cases of the European Court of Human Rights are analyzed. Whereas in 2014 EU Member states focused on the question whether or not to retain data, the 2016 conclusion was that in some aspects data retention is the most efficient measure to ensure national security, public safety and fighting across serious crimes. The terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels call to better equip security authorities. The EU legislature made significant progress on the Data Protection regime. The Directive (EU) 2016/680, the so called the ‘Police and Criminal Justice Directive’, repeals the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA and will enter into force on 6 May 2018.

Data Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union: An Unequal Playing Field

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-494
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Zell
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Location Based Services ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
The Eu

With the negotiation of its Data Protection Regulation, the European Union seeks to reform an outdated set of laws that has failed to address the evolving data protection challenges inherent in new technologies such as social networks, e-commerce, cloud computing, and location-based services. This article addresses the forthcoming Data Protection Regulation as well as the current state of data protection law in the EU, with a particular focus on Germany. The first part of the article examines Germany's robust data protection framework and the EU's existing authority. The article then raises key issues related to data protection in Germany and the EU—namely, discrepancies in data protection standards and enforcement among EU Member States—as illustrated by recent, high profile cases involving household names like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Through this analysis, the article attempts to explain how and why companies doing business in Germany, but established in other EU Member States, are subject to less stringent data protection standards than German companies. Lastly, the article synthesizes the issues in debate with regard to the draft Data Protection Regulation and offers perspectives on what the Regulation could and should mean for data protection in the EU.

scholarly journals Consultation of EU Immigration Databases for Law Enforcement Purposes: a Privacy and Data Protection Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-177
Author(s):  
Niovi Vavoula
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Private Life ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

Abstract Since the past three decades, an elaborate framework of EU-wide information systems processing the personal data of third-country nationals has emerged. The vast majority of these systems (VIS, Eurodac, EES, ETIAS) are conceptualised as multi-purpose tools, whereby their consultation for crime-related objectives is listed among their ancillary objectives. As a result, immigration records may be accessed by national law enforcement authorities and Europol for the purposes of fighting terrorism and other serious crimes under specified and limited conditions. Drawing from the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court, this article evaluates whether the EU rules on law enforcement access to EU immigration databases comply with the rights to respect for private life and protection of personal data, as enshrined in Article 7 and 8 of the EU Charter respectively. In addition, challenges posed by the forthcoming interoperability between databases are also examined.

scholarly journals The other side of tax discrimination

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 929-956
Author(s):  
Mateusz Wąsik
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Long Run ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Personal Taxation ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of the paper is to present the tax consequences resulting from the lack of recognition of registered partnerships and same-sex marriages in certain EU member states, taking the example of Poland. These aspects are usually perceived as discrimination of citizens based on their sexual orientation. The author of this paper has focused on various aspects of possible discrimination, mainly concerning discrimination on the grounds of personal taxation, including inheritance and gift taxes. For these purposes, the author analysed the domestic tax rules differentiating couples living in a marriage and couples without that possibility. These legal provisions have been analysed together with the most recent domestic jurisprudence. Furthermore, the paper presents comparative analyses of domestic rules with EU law. Due to the lack of case-law oriented towards fiscal discrimination due to sexual orientation, the relevant CJEU (the Court of Justice of the European Union, hereinafter: the CJEU) and ECHR (the European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter: the ECHR) case-law have been recalled to reveal possible violations of fundamental freedoms and tax discrimination. The author makes a connection between the lack of proper regulations implemented in the domestic law with the unjustified differentiation of cross-border families on tax grounds. In the long run, only the harmonisation of personal taxation at the EU level can lead to a resolution to this situation. Alternatively, as an interim solution, the relevant ECHR judgment may be of assistance.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

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 Apply or not to apply?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-94
Author(s):  
Matúš Mesarčík
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Privacy Regulation ◽  
New Era ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Consumer Privacy ◽  
Privacy Act ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Eu

A new era of data protection laws arises after the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. One of the newly adopted regulations of processing of personal data is Californian Consumer Privacy Act commonly referred to as CCPA. The article aims to fill the gap considering a deep analysis of the territorial scope of both acts and practical consequences of the application. The article starts with a brief overview of privacy regulation in the EU and USA. Introduction to GDPR and CCPA follows focusing on the territorial scope of respective legislation. Three scenarios of applicability are derived in the following part including practical examples.

scholarly journals Data Protection and the EPPO

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
Paul De Hert ◽  
Vagelis Papakonstantinou
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Data Processing ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Specific Level ◽  
European Public ◽  
Regulatory Model ◽  
Regulatory Landscape ◽  
The Eu

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (the ‘EPPO’) necessarily processes personal data in order to fulfil its mission; As such, it falls squarely within the European Union (EU) data protection regulatory landscape. However, because the EU data protection regulatory landscape itself is currently found at a crossroads, an analysis of the EPPO data protection model may be twofold: First, placing it within the proper cross-organization dialogue currently taking place on the future regulatory model of personal data processing for law enforcement purposes carried out at EU level. Second, at an EPPO-specific level, whereby the actual data protection regime afforded to it may be assessed. This article purports to elaborate upon the above two data protection dimensions of EPPO personal data processing activities: It presents considerations and policy options during the lawmaking period that resulted in the establishment of the EPPO, it analyses the data protection regime ultimately awarded to it and attempts to, critically, place the EPPO data protection model within its proper operational and legislative environment.

scholarly journals The Road Not Taken – the CJEU Sheds Light on the Role of Fundamental Rights in the European Copyright Framework – a Case Note on the Pelham, Spiegel Online and Funke Medien Decisions

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (9) ◽  
pp. 1176-1190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thom Snijders ◽  
Stijn van Deursen
Keyword(s):  
Great Majority ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Road ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Abstract On 29 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgments in three eagerly awaited cases, Pelham, Spiegel Online and Funke Medien, which all relate to the relationship between copyright and (other) fundamental rights. Specifically, an issue arising in these cases is whether the EU copyright acquis allows for fundamental rights to be invoked as an autonomous ground for limiting a copyright, outside of the mechanisms incorporated in the Copyright Directive for that purpose. In its judgments, the Court rejects this possibility and instead locates the role for fundamental rights in the interpretation and implementation of the exceptions and limitations of the Directive. We argue that – while this may render satisfactory results in the great majority of cases – in exceptional cases the CJEU’s approach towards balancing copyrights and fundamental rights could be at odds with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which might reduce the legal certainty sought after by the CJEU. Lastly, we consider the implications of that potential tension for the judicial authorities and other actors within the domestic legal orders of the EU Member States.

The (Rebuttable) Presumption of the European Union Member States as ‘Safe Countries’ under the Dublin Regulation

2012 ◽  
pp. 240-255
Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Dublin Regulation ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document