scholarly journals Los derechos fundamentales como límites en el marco de la investigación privada

Author(s):  
M.ª Josefa Ridaura Martínez

Este trabajo tiene como objeto el análisis de la obtención de información por parte de los agentes privados de investigación; esto es los detectives privados, habilitados por la ley para el ejercicio de dicha profesión. Afrontaremos cómo puede realizarse dicha investigación, cómo ha de obtenerse, y, en último término, qué alcance puede tener; esto es, cuáles pueden ser sus consecuencias, y qué valor probatorio pueden tener sus informes en el marco de un proceso. Todo ello con el propósito de enmarcar la investigación privada en las exigencias derivadas del texto constitucional de respeto de los derechos fundamentales, partiendo de su eficacia tanto vertical, como horizontal; ya que la actuación de los detectives, cada vez más demandada, incide sobre derechos que son nucleares, señaladamente, la protección del domicilio, el secreto de las comunicaciones, así como los derechos al honor, a la intimidad, a la propia imagen, y a la protección de datos de carácter personal.The purpose of this work is the analysis of the information obtained by private investigation agents; that is, private detectives, who are authorized by law to practice this profession. It analyses how such an investigation can be carried out, how it must be obtained, and, ultimately, what scope it can have; that is, what the consequences can be, and what evidential value their reports can have in the framework of a process. All this with the purpose of framing the private investigation in the demands derived from the constitutional text of respect of the fundamental rights, starting from its effectiveness so much vertical, as horizontal; taking into account that the action of the detectives, more and more demanded, affects rights that are nuclear, notably, the protection of the domicile, the secret of the communications, as well as the rights to the honour, to the intimacy, to the own image, and data protection.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Seyderhelm

The effect of fundamental rights among private individuals is breaking away from the usual patterns as a result of recent decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court. The work not only provides terminological clarity, but also elaborates the criteria that directly bind private individuals to fundamental rights. The author then looks at emerging constellations and examines the binding nature of fundamental rights there. The operator of Facebook fulfils both criteria described in more detail. These are the opening of a "public forum" and a predominant position of power. It is thus bound by fundamental rights. SCHUFA is not bound by this obligation, also because it is kept in check by existing (data protection) provisions of the legislator.


Author(s):  
Miguel Ángel CABELLOS ESPIÉRREZ

LABURPENA: Lan eremuan bideozaintzaren erabilerak ondorio garrantzitsuak dakartza funtsezko eskubideei dagokienez, esate baterako intimitateari eta datu pertsonalen babesari dagokienez. Hala eta guztiz ere, oraindik ez daukagu araudi zehatz eta espezifikorik kontrol-teknika hori lan eremuan erabiltzeari buruz. Horrek behartuta, errealitate horri araudi-esparru anitz eta generikoa aplikatzeko modua auzitegiek zehaztu behar dute, kontuan hartuta, gainera, Espainiako Konstituzioaren 18.4 artikulua alde horretatik lausoa dela. Konstituzio Auzitegiak, datuen babeserako funtsezko eskubidea aztertzean, datuen titularraren adostasuna eta titular horri eman beharreko informazioa eskubide horretan berebizikoak zirela ezarri zuen; hortik ondorioztatzen da titularraren adostasuna eta hari emandako informazioa mugatuz gero behar bezala justifikatu beharko dela. Hala ere, Konstituzio Auzitegiak, duela gutxiko jurisprudentzian, bere doktrina aldatu du. Aldaketa horrek, lan eremuan, argi eta garbi langileak informazioa jasotzeko duen eskubidea debaluatzea dakar, bere datuetatik zein lortzen ari diren jakiteari dagokionez. RESUMEN: La utilización de la videovigilancia en el ámbito laboral posee importantes implicaciones en relación con derechos fundamentales como los relativos a la intimidad y a la protección de datos personales. Pese a ello, carecemos aún de una normativa detallada y específica en relación con el uso de dicha técnica de control en el ámbito laboral, lo que obliga a que sean los tribunales los que vayan concretando la aplicación de un marco normativo plural y genérico a esa realidad, dada además la vaguedad del art. 18.4 CE. El TC, al analizar el derecho fundamental a la protección de datos, había establecido el carácter central en él del consentimiento del titular de los datos y de la información que debe dársele a éste, de donde se sigue que cualquier limitación del papel de ambos deberá estar debidamente justificada. Sin embargo, en su más reciente jurisprudencia el TC ha realizado un cambio de doctrina que supone, en el ámbito laboral, una clara devaluación del derecho a la información por parte del trabajador en relación con qué datos suyos se están obteniendo. ABSTRACT : T he use of video surveillance systems within the work sphere has major implications for fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection. Nonetheless, we still lack of a detailed and specific regulation regarding the use of that control technology within the work sphere, which obliges courts to define the application of a plural and generic normative framework to that issue, given the vagueness of art. 18.4 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, when analyzing the fundamental right to data protection, had settled the centralityof the consent of the data rightholder and of the information to be provided to the latter, and from this it followed that any restriction on the role of both rights should be duly justified. However, in its most recent case law the Constitutional Court has changed its doctrine which means, within the work sphere, a clear devaluation of the right of information by the employee regarding the obtained data of him/her.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner

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.


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 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lexo Zardiashvili ◽  
Eduard Fosch-Villaronga

AbstractHealthcare robots enable practices that seemed far-fetched in the past. Robots might be the solution to bridge the loneliness that the elderly often experience; they may help wheelchair users walk again, or may help navigate the blind. European Institutions, however, acknowledge that human contact is an essential aspect of personal care and that the insertion of robots could dehumanize caring practices. Such instances of human–robot interactions raise the question to what extent the use and development of robots for healthcare applications can challenge the dignity of users. In this article, therefore, we explore how different robot applications in the healthcare domain support individuals in achieving ‘dignity’ or pressure it. We argue that since healthcare robot applications are novel, their associated risks and impacts may be unprecedented and unknown, thus triggering the need for a conceptual instrument that is binding and remains flexible at the same time. In this respect, as safety rules and data protection are often criticized to lack flexibility, and technology ethics to lack enforceability, we suggest human dignity as the overarching governance instrument for robotics, which is the inviolable value upon which all fundamental rights are grounded.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 5-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert ◽  
Mistale Taylor

The deterritorialization of the Internet and international communications technology has given rise to acute jurisdictional questions regarding who may regulate online activities. In the absence of a global regulator, states act unilaterally, applying their own laws to transborder activities. The EU's “extraterritorial” application of its data protection legislation—initially the Data Protection Directive (DPD) and, since 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—is a case in point. The GDPR applies to “the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services . . . to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour . . . within the Union.” It also conditions data transfers outside the EU on third states having adequate (meaning essentially equivalent) data protection standards. This essay outlines forms of extraterritoriality evident in EU data protection law, which could be legitimized by certain fundamental rights obligations. It then looks at how the EU balances data protection with third states’ countervailing interests. This approach can involve burdens not only for third states or corporations, but also for the EU political branches themselves. EU law viewed through the lens of public international law shows how local regulation is going global, despite its goal of protecting only EU data subjects.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 502-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia QUELLE

The risk-based approach has been introduced to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to make the rules and principles of data protection law “work better”. Organisations are required to calibrate the legal norms in the GDPR with an eye to the risks posed to the rights and freedoms of individuals. This article is devoted to an analysis of the way in which this new approach relates to “tick-box” compliance. How can the law enhance itself? If handled properly by controllers and supervisory authorities, the risk-based approach can bring about a valuable shift in data protection towards substantive protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. While the risk-based approach has a lot of potential, it also has a risk of its own: it relies on controllers to improve compliance, formulating what it means to attain compliance 2.0.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document