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 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 ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF SCHREMS II FOR EU–US DATA FLOW

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Maria Helen Murphy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Flow ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constant Flow ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With the constant flow of data across jurisdictions, issues regarding conflicting laws and the protection of rights arise. This article considers the EU–US data transfer relationship in the aftermath of the decision in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated an EU–US data transfer agreement for the second time in just five years. This judgment continues the line of cases emphasising the high value the Court places on securing EU personal data in accordance with EU data protection standards and fundamental rights. This article assesses the implications of the ruling for the vulnerable EU–US data transfer relationship.

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 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.

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.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Georgian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Gaga Gabrichidze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter scrutinizes perception of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Georgian courts and the Georgian Competition Agency. With the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia in 2014, the Georgian legal system undoubtedly became more closely connected with EU law. Hence, approximation commitments under the Association Agreement made the case law of the CJEU of much more relevance for the Georgian courts and administrative authorities. However, in the wake of intensification of EU–Georgia relations, the impact of CJEU case law can be identified even in the time before conclusion of the Association Agreement. Analysis shows that several factors play a role with regard to the extent and frequency of mentioning CJEU case law in the decisions of the Georgian courts and Competition Agency. Judges refer to case law of the CJEU with the aim of either strengthening their own arguments or using it as a source of interpretation. Taking into consideration the ‘European’ roots of Georgia’s competition policy, the Competition Agency regards the case law of the CJEU as having a very important interpretative value for closing ‘gaps’ in the law.

Der Schutz personenbezogener Daten eines Whistleblowers in der Europäischen Kommission

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Aust
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Law Firms ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Doctoral Thesis ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Definition Of

The doctoral thesis explains what is meant by “whistleblowing” and examines the conditions under which such behavior is legally protected at the level of the European Union. A definition of whistleblowing is derived from the fundamental rights of the European Union. In addition, taking into account current data protection developments, in particular the GDPR, the protection of the personal data of a whistleblower is comprehensively assessed. The author has been active in the field of data protection law for years and worked as a legal trainee at the Hamburg data protection officer and various law firms with a focus on IT law and data protection law.

Migration and Asylum Cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union: Putting the Eu Charter of Fundamental Rights to Test?

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Ippolito
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This article explores the various guarantees embedded in the eu Charter of Fundamental Rights for eu citizens and third country nationals, following the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction by the Lisbon Treaty in the area of freedom, security and justice. In particular, it highlights the potential and limits to the impact of the Charter in immigration or asylum cases before the cjeu.

Bridge Is Down, Data Truck Can’t Get Through …

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oreste Pollicino ◽  
Marco Bassini
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Technological Environment ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right

The decision of the Court of Justice in Schrems follows the Digital Rights Ireland and Google Spain stances in the Court process of revisiting the data protection framework in Europe in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Through the invalidation of Decision 2000/520/EC of the Commission on the adequacy of the US safe harbor principles, the Court of Justice has relied on a very extensive interpretation of the right to private life and data protection. As in the former decisions that have let emerge the existence of a new digital right to privacy, this judgment mirrors some degree of manipulation by the Court of Justice, justified by the goal of protecting as much as possible personal data in the new technological environment.

scholarly journals A Knot Not to Be Cut? The Legacy of Brexit over the CJEU

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-36
Author(s):  
Marta Simoncini ◽  
Giuseppe Martinico
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Structure And Activity ◽  
The Eu

What was the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Brexit saga? And what will the impact of Brexit be over the future structure and activity of the CJEU? This article deals with this twofold question and explores three different issues. Firstly, we will offer a reflection on the questions and the risks raised by the Wightman case, where the CJEU ruled on the unilateral revocation of the UK notification of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Art. 50 Treaty of the EU. Secondly, we will analyse the impact of Brexit on the composition of the CJEU and, particularly, the risks for the independence of the Court raised by the advanced termination of the mandate of the British Advocate General. Thirdly, we will provide some insights on the scope of the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the post-Brexit Union, emphasising how the Withdrawal Agreement maintained its jurisdiction during and even beyond the transition period. This article reflects the events that took place up to 6 October 2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document