scholarly journals Data eetention in CJEU Case Law

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.

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-138
Author(s):  
Julia Wojnowska-Radzińska

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the processing of personal data under Regulation 2017/226 is compatible with the principle of proportionality in the light of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Regulation 2017/2226 provides the EES system which is the only system that collects the entry/exit data of all third-country nationals entering the Schengen area for a short stay, whether via a land, sea or air border. The EES replaces the current system of manual stamping of passports.


2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Van Elsuwege ◽  
Peter Van Elsuwege ◽  
Dimitry Kochenov

Abstract This article scrutinises the logic behind the recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ruiz Zambrano and McCarthy focusing on their implications for the right to family reunification under EU law. Specific attention is devoted to the phenomenon of reverse discrimination in the context of the new jurisdiction test established by the Court, which is based on the severity of the Member States’ interference with EU citizenship rights rather than on a pure cross-border logic. EU citizens unable to establish a link with EU law are often subject to stricter family reunification requirements in comparison to their migrant compatriots and even certain third country nationals. It is argued that this situation is difficult to accept in light of the principles of legal certainty, equality and the protection of fundamental rights. A new balance between EU citizenship and Member States’ regulatory autonomy is established but legislative action is required to solve the outstanding problems.


Author(s):  
Oreste Pollicino ◽  
Marco Bassini

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15
Author(s):  
José Luís Da Cruz Vilaça

Finding the right balance between achieving the full potential of the digital economy in terms of innovation and economic growth, on the one hand, and protecting the core values of our societies, including fundamental rights and the rule of law, on the other hand, has become a pressing issue for political and judicial authorities. Data generated by electronic communications is an important tool in the fight against organized crime and terrorism, whose effectiveness depends on the use of modern research techniques. However, the pursuance of that general interest objective must be balanced against the need to protect the fundamental rights to privacy and to personal data from the most serious interferences.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-227
Author(s):  
Biancamaria Raganelli ◽  
Pierre de Gioia Carabellese

The Covid pandemic has raised various legal issues, fueling the scientific debate on the relationship between fundamental rights and freedoms in the global emergency context. Moreover, a case law has started developing within the different jurisdictions. Additionally, constitutional Courts, in different countries, have ruled over potential conflicts of interest among central powers and local ones, and even some decisa of the Court of Justice of the European Union have started “blossoming” in this area. Against the backdrop of this analysis, the paper discusses the main legal problems sparked off by the declaration of the state of emergency, with a focus on the main EU jurisdictions and with glimpses of non-EU countries. The aim of this is to discuss the balance between fundamental rights and liberties in decisa in different legal systems, as well as the interpretation given to principles of proportionality of the public health measures, adequacy, precaution and loyal collaboration and the relationship between freedom and limits to public power. Bearing this in mind, the purpose of the work is to demonstrate that, first and foremost, in Europe there is room for both a formal and a substantial recognition of common rights and liberties in terms of interpretation and application of constitutional traditions, shared by the different Member States. The relevant adherence to these principles is guaranteed by the European Court of Justice. Second, the recovery after the pandemic is an open challenge. An important opportunity for Europe and its Member States is materialising, and this is to take a step forward on the bumpy path toward a European Political Union capable of strengthening a structure weakened by several earthquakes. A path and a project still plenty of pitfalls that needs to regroup around a central core increasing unification among European peoples (art. 1 TEU), which has never meant to be an alternative to national identity. Received: 24.11.2021Accepted: 13.12.2021


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.


2019 ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
O. M. Rym

The article deals with certain aspects of collective labour rights in the European Union. Prerequisites and procedure of this rights guaranting as general principles of EU law are analyzed and their content is characterized. It is emphasized that such legal establishing took place somewhat haphazardly, both at the level of the acts of primary and secondary law of the European Union and in the case law. As a result, there is no single position on the spectrum of collective labour rights as principles of EU labor law. The author focuses on significant changes in the understanding of the necessity of cooperation of social partners and the extension of their interaction at the supranational level. It is under the responsibility of the European Commission to promote cooperation between Member States and to facilitate coordination of their activities in the field of the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and employees. The article clarifies the content of collective labour rights as general principles of EU law on the basis of EU legal acts, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as the scientific works of domestic and foreign scholars. It is noted that the system of collective labour rights, as general principles of EU labour law, consists of the right of collective bargaining and collective action, the right of employees to information and consultation within the enterprise, as well as the freedom of assembly and association. It is concluded that the necessity of cooperation between the social partners is recognized as one of the foundations of EU labour law. Herewith appropriate interaction is ensured through the normative-legal consolidation of collective labour rights and procedures for their implementation. After all, European Union legal acts allow employees and employers’ representatives to play an active role in regulating labour legal relations. For example, Member States may instruct employers and employees, upon their joint request, to implement Council directives or decisions. In addition, many directives contain warnings about the possibility of derogating from their provisions through the adoption of a collective agreement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document