1 / 18

Transposing the Data Retention Directive in Greece: Lessons from Karlsruhe

Analyzing transposition of EU's Data Retention Directive in Greece with insights from Karlsruhe court rulings and Greek laws. Examines proportionality, judicial control, telecom providers' roles, and implications for digital activism.

richiea
Download Presentation

Transposing the Data Retention Directive in Greece: Lessons from Karlsruhe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transposing the Data Retention Directive in Greece:Lessons from Karlsruhe Anna Tsiftsoglou & Spyridon Flogaitis (University of Athens, Greece) 4th International Conference-Information Law & Ethics Thessaloniki, Greece, May 20-21st, 2011

  2. What Karlsruhe Said (2010)

  3. 1. The ‘Privacy Test’ • 10GG & ‘informational self-determination’ • 8 EU Charter Fund. Rights/ 8 ECHR (privacy) • Three-level test (legality – legitimacy – proportionality) • Proportionality involves additional safeguards to counterbalance intensity of interference • “Diffuse Threat” – chilling effects • Data Retention useful law enforcement tool (profiling techniques)

  4. Proportionality check • Purpose Limitation • Minimize Scope of Data Processing – use plain and concrete language- enlist specific crimes • High Data Security Standards • No discretion left to operators • Independent Authorities may assume regulatory role • Transparency of Processing • Effective Legal Protection • Judicial Control/ Legal Sanctions/ Liability

  5. Court Assessment • Present structure of provisions lacks the above four standards  dis-proportional • Contrary to 10GG/ extends to traffic data • Dissent (Schluckebier/Eichberger)- • Judicial activism/ changing nature of public safety

  6. 2. Telecom Providers • ‘Guarantors’ of personal data ? • New public-private networks/ data processing models / distributed surveillance • Financial burdens – who pays? • 12GG/ 14GG/ Art1-First Protocol to ECHR • BVerfG says it does not exceed obligations if it is proportional • Market assumes cost shifts it to consumers?

  7. 3. Karlsruhe v Luxembourg

  8. Karlsruhe v. Luxembourg • No referral (267TFEU) to ECJ – no ‘dialogues’ • C-301/07  ECJ confirmed 95EC as proper legal basis for DRD – reversed PNR ruling • Data retention as an ‘internal market affair’ – promoted EU Parliament’s position • Principle of Subsidiarity • Retention & storage  EU law • Access & use national law

  9. Karlsruhe v. Luxembourg • ‘sovereignty’ v ‘integration’-oriented approach • German constitutional identity as upper limit • Institutional balances – international spirit

  10. The Greek Transposition

  11. *Law 3917/2011* • Late transposition – C-211/09 • Traffic & location data treated as elements of ‘intimate communication’ 19Gr.Constitution • Enhanced guarantees- executive law 2225/94 • Additional guarantees provided by new law • Failure to provide effective DP control: • ‘Institutional verbosity’ • Merger of administrative authorities

  12. The ‘Moment of Truth’ for the Data Retention Directive

  13. The EC Evaluation (April 2011) • Judicial Developments • More than 6 national courts have declared national transposing laws unconstitutional since 2008 • Irish Referral to ECJ (2010) – case pending • Regulatory Developments (major deviations) • ‘Data Retention a valuable tool’ (true?) • Commissioner Malmström: “I intend to review the Directive to clarify who is allowed to access the data, the purpose & procedures for accessing it” (Press Release, 18.4.2011)

  14. Lessons from Karlsruhe • Guarantees • Supervision • Sanctions, liability • Proportionality • ‘quality of law’ - Purpose limitation • Assessment tool for anti-terrorist measures • Self-regulation • Inadequate - privacy standards should be imposed

  15. Digital Activism

  16. “Freiheit statt Angst”(Freedom, not Fear) Berlin, October 11th 2008 – approximately 70,000 protesters – biggest privacy event in German history

  17. Patrick Breyer – the brain behind the BVerfG case

  18. Former PhD Student who wrote a thesis on ‘data retention’- His Movement ‘AK Vorrat’ managed to initiate 34,000 constitutional complaints to Karlsruhe- The Biggest in the Court’s History

More Related