scholarly journals La proteccion de datos personales en la más reciente jurisprudencia del TJUE: los derechos de la CDFUE como parámetro de validez del derecho europeo, y su impacto en la relación transatlántica UE-EEUU

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):  
Dieter Grimm

This chapter examines the democratic costs of constitutionalization by focusing on the European case. It first considers the interdependence of democracy and constitutionalism before discussing how constitutionalization can put democracy at risk. It then explores the tension between democracy and fundamental rights, the constitutionalization of the European treaties, and the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) two separate judgments regarding the relationship between European law and national law. It also assesses the impact of the ECJ’s jurisprudence on democracy, especially in the area of economic integration. The chapter argues that the legitimacy problem the EU faces is caused in part by over-constitutionalization and that the remedy to this problem is re-politicization of decisions with significant political implications.


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?


This book addresses the relationship between EU law and new technologies. Its aim is to address two groups of questions. First, how does EU law approach the relation between science and regulation and what part do conceptions of risk play in this approach; is there a distinctive character to EU law in this domain? And second, what challenges do new technologies pose for the EU internal market and for fundamental principles of EU law, including fundamental rights? Do new technologies represent potential new barriers to freedom of movement? How are EU instruments used to direct and orientate EU policy on new technologies, and how do new technologies shape EU policy, including—but not only—EU policy on privacy and data protection? The book is organized into two parts. The first part, ‘The EU, Scientific Risk, and Regulatory Design’, addresses some of the more horizontal questions, helping us to unpack and to understand the EU’s approach to the regulation of scientific/technological risk and the impact on regulatory design of the close link between the regulation of technology and the internal market. The second part, ‘EU Law and New Technologies—Challenge and Response’, uses different policy fields to exemplify the different ways in which technology and EU policy interact, by posing new regulatory challenges (data protection; internet governance), and by shaping the regulatory response to new challenges (the use of technology for border management and migration control).


European View ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 178168582110555
Author(s):  
Jan Czarnocki

The article explains the importance of the emerging movement for EU digital constitutionalism (EUDC), which reflects a Union-wide effort to address through regulation the challenges posed by digitalisation. The article outlines the core legislative acts that have been introduced by proponents of EUDC. It describes why EUDC is important for fundamental rights protection and European foreign policy, and how the ‘Brussels effect’ extends the impact of EUDC. It enquires into whether EUDC is sustainable, taking into consideration waning EU global influence and the need for economic growth. The EU needs to strike a balance between fundamental rights protection and economic growth. The proportionality principle is the right tool for this. A proportional approach should be followed in establishing a transatlantic digital accord with the US—an agreement on the basic principles governing the digital space. A more proportional approach will pave the way to such an agreement—giving EUDC a global scope.


2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 1779-1805
Author(s):  
Danijela Vrbljanac

Not many areas of European law proved themselves as controversial as data protection. The only case in which this issue could become more debatable is if personal data crosses EU borders. The transfer of personal data to third countries proved its disputed status when the CJEU invalidated the Safe Harbour Agreement, one of the frameworks for the transfer of personal data to the US and several more came under the CJEU’s scrutiny, including the Safe Harbour Agreement’s successor, the Privacy Shield Agreement. It has been suggested that some of these instruments for transfer need to be repealed or amended in order to be brought in conformity with the GDPR. The paper, after analysing each of the grounds for transfer which may be used by EU companies, argues that regardless of the recent entry into force of the GDPR, the data protection “revolution” is still not complete, at least as far the transborder data flows are concerned.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 36-40
Author(s):  
Mario Rosentau

While the EU General Data Protection Regulation, which entered force on 25 May, is generally good and necessary in its vigorous protection of the fundamental rights of self‑determination and identity of European people, the article identifies a core issue that has gone unnoticed: the GDPR violates EU treaties. It is, at base, a ‘European law’, yet European laws are banned under the TEU and TFEU. The article examines the background for this conflict. The ambitious plan for ratification of 2003’s draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe fell at the first hurdle in 2005. The draft Constitution envisaged a legislative innovation: the European law and European framework law, directly applicable in the Member States and superior to them. These legal instruments, envisaged as replacing EU regulations, could readily be cited as a major federalist pillar of the draft. Yet there would be no European laws – they were rejected with the draft constitution in the 2005 referenda, and the current treaties do not foresee any law-like European legislation. The author outlines the GDPR’s nature as a European law thus: the regulation 1) potentially concerns all residents of Europe, albeit by adding to the rights of individuals and protecting their freedoms; 2) addresses virtually all legal entities and undertakings acting, physically or through a network, in the European judicial area; 3) addresses the Member States and the EU itself; 4) and has cross-border applicability and covers the whole EU. Furthermore, its reach extends to service providers outside the EU if their service targets EU data subjects. There are substantial impacts on subjects on whom obligations are substantial. Hence, the author concludes that the GDPR’s scope, depth, and impacts exceed all the limits that the EU treaties permit for regulations. Furthermore, the treaties do not even know the term ‘general regulation’. Since the GDPR possesses the characteristics of a ‘European law’ – and even is ‘seamlessly’ positioned in a place reserved by the draft EU Constitution for the ‘European law on data protection’ – while such laws have been rejected, a key issue is highlighted: how deep an EU-level political integration and relinquishment of the individual European nations’ sovereignty do the Member States actually want? For instance, most analyses of the causes of Brexit cite loss of sovereignty of the UK as one of the main factors in the decision. The author concludes that, since the GDPR is with us to stay, amendment of the EU treaties can no longer be avoided. Noble objectives cannot justify infringements of the present ‘European Constitution’ and the constitutions of the Member States.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian DeSimone

Since the 1980s Germany has developed a subtle and complex data protection jurisprudence originally designed to protect individual data subjects from rights abuses by market actors. However, the rights aggressor has increasingly been German and European law enforcement authorities. This evolving corpus of law also exhibits a singularly-German mindfulness of the historical significance of abrogating fundamental rights within constitutional democracy.


Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt

Chapter 4 systematizes the different ways that judicial policymaking can have an impact on European legislation. Identifying the codification of case-law principles in secondary law contributes to research on the EU in two important ways: it shows how EU legislation is embedded in case-law development, and that the impact of case law cannot be reduced to the question of compliance with single rulings. A differentiation is made between several types of judicial ‘shadow’ over the legislative process. Then the Services Directive and the regulation on the mutual recognition of goods are analysed. The principles of case law that were motivated by the specific circumstances of individual cases constrain the design of general rules. Secondary law cannot modify constitutional principles. At best, the legislature can hope to signal its political preferences to the Court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document