scholarly journals Applicability of ePrivacy Directive to national data retention measures following invalidation of the Data Retention Directive

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina GUMZEJ

The paper analyses rules pertinent for examination of national data retention measures regulating data processing activities of providers of electronic communication services following invalidation of the Data Retention Directive in 2014, on which subject the CJEU issued a total of five judgments up until June 2021. Focus of this analysis is the issue of applicability of EU law as interpreted in the CJEU case law, most specifically Article 15, paragraph 1 of the ePrivacy Directive containing legal safeguards for the restrictions of rights and obligations in that directive on the confidentiality of communications as well as the processing of traffic and location data. Such restrictions are as a rule manifested in different national data retention measures, which may pursue law enforcement and public security, as well as national security objectives. This examination is supported also by analysis of rules on the scope of ePrivacy Directive and its relationship with the general personal data protection framework. Overall findings in the paper provide a frame for further detailed research on the topic of future regulation of retention measures at national/EU level (Proposal for ePrivacy Regulation, possible new EU data retention legislation) and a comparative assessment of relevant CJEU jurisprudence with that of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of compatibility of retention measures with the guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms and allowed restrictions thereof in the European legal system.

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1231-1252
Author(s):  
Tatjana Bugarski ◽  
Milana Pisarić

Possession of accurate, complete and reliable relevant data on electronic communications traffic and timely access of authorized competent state bodies to such data is without a doubt a useful tool in the fight against modern forms of crime. For that reason, it is justified to establish an obligation for providers of electronic communications services to keep certain data on communications for a certain period of time in the realization of which they mediate and to hand over that data at the request of authorized state bodies, in order to use them for legitimate purposes. For this reason, the Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2006, which Member States were required to transpose into national law. However, data retention poses a risk to basic human rights and freedoms, if the regulation establishing this obligation does so without respecting the essence of these rights and freedoms, especially the right to privacy and rights related to the processing of personal data, for which reason the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Directive invalid is 2014. Despite this decision, Member States continue to regulate the obligation to retain data in their national regulations. In this regard, the question of compliance of these regulations with the fundamental rights and freedoms and principles of the Union is raised. The subject of the paper is the analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU on this issue after the annulment of the Data Retention Directive.


2021 ◽  
pp. 39-54
Author(s):  
Mónika Márton

A pandemic can provide a textbook example for the restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms. Romania has decided to derogate from the application of the European Convention on Human Rights during the state of emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The questions discussed in this paper are whether the derogation of Romania fulfils the criteria established by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. If the answer is affirmative: does it have any effect on the inherent limitations on the freedom of expression as stated in art. 10 of ECHR?


Author(s):  
Blanca Ballester Martínez

Regulation 1049/2001 establishes and shapes the right of access to documents in the European Union. This right is limited by a series of colliding principles and rights, such as privacy of personal data, ‘ordre public’ or commercial interests. The European Court of Justice, through rulings by each one of its two Courts (the General Court and the European Court), has shaped and generally extended the scope of Regulation 1049/2001, increasing transparency in the institutions. However, there is no clear case-law trend as regards access to documents, since rulings often contradict each other and precedents are of relatively little value. Recent rulings, such as those given to the Borax and Bavarian Lager cases, seem to restrict public access to documents in the institutions by placing access to documents under other values such as privacy and data protection. This trend seems again to contradict what the Lisbon Treaty and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights have just introduced: a higher consideration of access to documents and a clear commitment with institutional transparency. This paper aims at giving a clear overview of the evolution and state of play of the right of public access to documents in the European legislation and case law. By analyzing the latest legal and jurisprudential developments, it can be concluded that law and case law do not seem to go hand in hand yet and seem to contradict each other. Immediate and further developments should be watched with a careful eye, as these will shape the post-Lisbon concept of access to documents. Consequently, essential principles such as transparency and data protection might undergo as well important changes.El Reglamento 1049/2001 consagra y configure el derecho de acceso público a documentos en la Unión Europea. Este derecho está limitado por ciertos bienes jurídicos en conflicto, como la privacidad de los datos personales, el orden público o los intereses comerciales. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, a través de las sentencias emanadas de sus dos instancias, ha pulido y en general extendido el campo de aplicación del Reglamento 1049/2001, aumentando la transparencia en las instituciones. Sin embargo, no hay una línea jurisprudencial clara al respecto, dado que las sentencias a menudo se contradicen entre sí y los precedentes jurisprudenciales parecen tener escaso valor en los asuntos posteriores. Algunas sentencias recientes, como las recaídas en los asuntos Borax y Bavarian Lager, parecen por el contrario restringir el derecho de acceso a documentos, dado que hacen prevalecer otros bienes jurídicos como la privacidad o la protección de datos. Esta última tendencia parece contradecir al Tratado de Lisboa y a la Carta Europea de Derechos Fundamentales, puesto que éstos han introducido una mayor consideración al derecho de acceso a documentos con el fin de aumentar la transparencia institucional. Este artículo busca procurar una panorámica general de la evolución y el estado actual del derecho de acceso público a los documentos tanto en la legislación como en la jurisprudencia europeas. Del análisis tanto de las novedades legislativas y jurisprudenciales al respecto se deduce que ambas no parecen ir a la par, sino que llegan incluso a contradecirse. El desarrollo futuro tanto de la ley como de la jurisprudencia deberán ser objeto de estudio detallado, dado que serán determinantes en la configuración del derecho de acceso a documentos tras el Tratado de Lisboa. Como consecuencia de esto, puede que ciertos principios también fundamentales, como la transparencia o la protección de datos, sufran importantes cambios en un futuro inmediato.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (29) ◽  
pp. 6-14
Author(s):  
Viacheslav Viktorovich Shamrai ◽  
Yuliia Yuriivna Ivchuk ◽  
Vladislav Yegorovich Tarasenko ◽  
Hlib Omelianovych Fedorov

The purpose of the article is to identify and analyze topical issues of the application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - ECtHR) in the context of the implementation of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. To achieve this purpose, the authors have studied the scientific positions of the lawyers, the relevant provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine, the requirements of international legal acts and the case-law of the ECtHR. The general provisions of the criminal process science were methodological basis of the study. The authors of the article used the following methods of scientific knowledge: systematic, logical, semantic, comparative and documentary analysis. The place of the case-law of the ECtHR in the system of national legislation has been clarified, in particular the decisions of this Court are binding throughout Ukraine, and national courts have to apply the case-law of the ECtHR as a source of law. It is argued that the right of Ukrainian communities to seek the protection of their rights and freedoms under the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter - ECHR) is an additional guarantee against arbitrariness of the public authorities and officials who violated or restricted them. It was stated that even after implementation of the universally recognized norms and principles of international law in the sphere of protection of human rights and freedoms into current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the facts of their violation occur. This, in turn, leads to the adoption of the ECtHR decisions against Ukraine, in which 90% of cases state violations of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR.


Author(s):  
Francesco Seatzu

The year 2015 was characterized by some important development in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law as a whole, and in particular the case law on fundamental rights, citizenship, institutional issues, protection of personal data, and social policy and rights issues. Noteworthy is that the ECJ finally issued its landmark and long-awaited judgment in the Maximillian Schrems case that led to the invalidation of the ‘safe harbour’ system, namely, one of the mechanisms in the last fifteen years for personal data transfers from the European Union to US entities having voluntary self-certified under the US safe harbour framework.


Author(s):  
Stijn van Deursen ◽  
Henk Kummeling

The New Silk Road initiative offers unique opportunities for setting up Sino–European collaborations in higher education and research. Academic cooperation between countries that are rooted in different legal, cultural, and academic backgrounds might, however, also create challenges. Although the European Union is strongly promoting Open Science and—within that framework—open and fair data, it is clear that Open Science is only possible in an open society, in which fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals are protected. In this light, the chapter investigates the implications of the European personal data protection rules (GDPR) for Sino–European collaborations. To what extent are free flows of personal data possible on the New Silk Road? It concludes that the current differences between both regimes create considerable obstacles on the Road. The chapter explores the necessary restrictions, technological solutions, and legal arrangements that might be helpful in facilitating collaborations that comply with the European rules.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-267
Author(s):  
Kathrin Hamenstädt

This Article focuses on the Ziebell judgment, in which the European Court of Justice rejected the analogous application of the protection against expulsion for Union citizens to Turkish citizens covered by the Association Agreement. The judgment is placed in the context of the opinion of the Advocate General, the pre-Ziebell judgments of the Court, and judgments of German courts regarding the expulsion of Turkish citizens. On the one hand, against the background of previous case-law of the Court, the judgment might be seen as a setback. On the other hand, the Court's reference to the Long-Term Residents Directive also provides for new interpretative possibilities. Next to the applicability of the directive and the advantages and disadvantages for Turkish nationals triggered by this shift, the interpretative possibilities are discussed in light of fundamental rights and the stand-still obligation anchored in Association Council Decision 1/80.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.


Author(s):  
Giancarlo Frosio ◽  
Sunimal Mendis

This chapter analyses the evolution of a trend towards the imposition of proactive monitoring obligations on intermediaries along the entire spectrum of intermediary liability subject matters and focuses on the recent EU copyright law reform. Article 17 of the newly enacted EU Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market has come under fire for the heightened level of liability it imposes on online services providers (OSPs) for copyright-infringing content stored or transmitted by them. Based on an analysis of case law from multiple jurisdictions and an overview of industry practice, this chapter seeks to locate the new European reform within a much wider global trend that aims to impose proactive monitoring and filtering obligations on OSPs. It argues that the impetus for the introduction of Article 17 is rooted in the ‘internet threat’ discourse and reflects a gradual shift in the perception of OSPs from being ‘mere conduits’ to ‘active gate-keepers’ of content uploaded and shared by users. Following an evaluation of the extent to which Article 17 diverges from the existing intermediary liability framework in the EU, the chapter concludes by analysing its potential impact on users’ fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly in the light of its propensity to motivate wider use of automated filtering systems and algorithmic enforcement mechanisms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document