Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Data Retention Directive and the right to privacy

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Our personal data is becoming more important and more valuable with each passing minute. The judgment of April 2014 of the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Data Retention Directive invalid which marked a historical moment for the right to privacy and data protection. The Luxembourg Court fulfills its role as the keeper of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in finding balance outweighs the public interest of combating serious crimes and focuses on privacy rights justifications that prevail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Memo 14/186, Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote European Commission, 12 March 2014.

  2. Joined Cases C-293/12 and 594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. and Seitlinger and others v. Minister for Communications and others, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 April 2014.

  3. Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española De Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 May 2014.

  4. Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

  5. Joined Cases C-293/12 and 594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. and Seitlinger and others v. Minister for Communications and others, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 April 2014.

  6. Warren, Brandeis [9].

  7. Posner [6].

  8. Westin [10].

  9. Kuner [4].

  10. Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

  11. Article 1 of the Data Protection Directive.

  12. Recital 10 of the Data Protection Directive.

  13. Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector.

  14. Art. 2, sub. b) and c).

  15. As of the Lisbon Treaty from 1 December 2009.

  16. Article 1(1) of the Data Protection Directive.

  17. Case C-275/06, Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España SAU, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29 January 2008.

  18. Case 30562/04 and 30566/04, S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 December 2008, para 67.

  19. Ibid.

  20. Para 34 of the data retention judgment.

  21. Para 36 of the data retention judgment.

  22. Para 37 of the data retention judgment.

  23. Tzanou [8].

  24. Advovate General’s Opinion in joined cases C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland and C-594/12 Seitlinger and Others of 12 December 2013.

  25. Press release of Advovate General’s Opinion in joined cases C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland and C-594/12 Seitlinger and Others of 12 December 2013, p. 1.

  26. Bignami [1], p. 233-255.

  27. COM (2011) 225 final, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), 18 April 2011.

  28. Case 30562/04 and 30566/04, S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 December 2008, para 67.

  29. Case A-82, Malone v. United Kingdom, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 2 August 1984, para 84.

  30. Case C-101/01, Lindqvist, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2003, para. 84.

  31. COM (2011) 225 final, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), 18 April 2011, p. 8.

  32. Case C-301/06, Ireland v Council of the European Union, European Parliament, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 February 2009.

  33. Para 60 of Ireland v Council of the European Union, European Parliament.

  34. See Treaty on European Union, art 35, 2002 OJ (C 325) 5 (Feb 7, 1992) (hereinafter “Treaty on European Union”). For the Court of Justice to have jurisdiction over preliminary rulings from national courts concerning Third Pillar measures, the Member State must enter a declaration. By 2005, fourteen out of twenty-five Member States had acceded to the Court of Justice’s jurisdiction. See Information Concerning the Declarations by the French Republic and the Republic of Hungary on their Acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to Give Preliminary Rulings on the Acts Referred to in Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union, 2005 OJ (L 327) 19.

  35. COM (2011) 225 final, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), 18 April 2011, p. 31.

  36. Ibid.

  37. Para 56 of the data retention judgment.

  38. Para 58 of the data retention judgment.

  39. Para 58 of the data retention judgment.

  40. Tzanou [8], p. 22.

  41. Para 62 of the data retention judgment.

  42. Para 61 of the data retention judgment.

  43. Para 64 of the data retention judgment.

  44. COM (2005) 438 Final, European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Retention of Data Processed in Connection with the Provision of Public Electronic Communication Services and Amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

  45. Tsiftsoglou, Flogaitis [7].

  46. Kaifa-Gbanti [3].

  47. Para 65 of the data retention judgment.

  48. Para 55 of the data retention judgment.

  49. Para 67 of the data retention judgment.

  50. Para 68 of the data retention judgment.

  51. Para 68 of the data retention judgment.

  52. National legal challenges to the Data Retention Directive, Chris Jones, 8 April 2014, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.de/2014/04/national-legal-challenges-to-data.html (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  53. Recital 9 of the Data Retention Directive.

  54. Czech Republic, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, Finland, Netherlands, Ireland and Hungary (p. 8 of the European Data Protection Supervisor opinion).

  55. European Data Protection Supervisor, opinion of 26 September 2005, OJ 2005, C298/1. During a conference organised by the Commission in December 2010, the European Data Protection Supervisor referred to the instrument as ‘the most privacy invasive instrument ever adopted by the EU in terms of scale and the number of people it affects’, see speech of 3 December 2010, to be found on the European Data Protection Supervisor website (http://www.edps.europa.eu) under ‘Publications’ ≪ ‘Speeches & Articles’ ≫ ‘2010’ (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  56. Joint Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 November 2010.

  57. Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 of 26 November 2007, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

  58. Para 49 of the data retention judgment.

  59. Para 53 and 54 of the data retention judgment.

  60. Boehm, Cole [2], p. 92.

  61. https://www.cpdp.bg/index.php?p=news_view&aid=644 (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  62. http://www.bna.com/eu-data-retention-n17179892972/ (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  63. https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/sodbe/US_RS_ZEKom-1_3julij2014.tif (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  64. http://edri.org/slovenia-data-retention-unconstitutional/ (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  65. Bignami [1], pp. 233-255.

  66. http://edri.org/uk-emergency-legislation-on-data-retention-drip/ (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  67. http://www.bna.com/eu-data-retention-n17179892972/ (last visited on 25 November 2014).

  68. Data Retention after the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (supra note 65), p. 93.

  69. Article 258 TFEU.

  70. Article 15 of the e-Privacy Directive.

  71. Case C-578/08, Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 March 2010.

  72. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification.

  73. Case C-461/10, Bonnier Audio AB and others v Perfect Communication Sweden AB, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 April 2012.

  74. Para 56 of the Bonnier Audio judgment.

  75. Peers [5].

  76. Bundesverfasssungsgericht, 1 BvR 256/08.

  77. Para 82 of the opinion of the EDPS.

  78. Information Note 9009/14, Council of the European Union, 05 May 2014, available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2014/may/eu-council-note-data-retention-judgment-9009-14.pdf (last visited on 25 November 2014), para 20.

  79. Case C-236/09, Test-Achats v Conseil des ministres, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 1 March 2011.

References

  1. Bignami, F.E.: Privacy and law enforcement in the European Union: the data retention directive. Chic. J. Int. Law 8, 233–255 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boehm, Prof.F., Cole Prof M, D.: Data retention after the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Münster/Luxembourg (2014). Available at: http://www.janalbrecht.eu/fileadmin/material/Dokumente/Boehm_Cole_-_Data_Retention_Study_-_June_2014.pdf

  3. Kaifa-Gbanti, M.: Surveillance models in the security state & fair criminal trial. Nomiki Vivliothiki 43 (2010)

  4. Kuner, Ch.: An international legal framework for data protection: issues and prospects. Comput. Law & Secur. Rev. 25, 307–317 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Peers, S.: The data retention judgment: the CJEU prohibits mass surveillance (2014)

  6. Posner, R.: Economic Analysis of Law, 5th edn. p. 46. (1998)

  7. Tsiftsoglou, A., Flogaitis, S.: Transposing the data retention directive in Greece: lessons from Karlsruhe in values & freedoms. In: Modern Information Law & Ethics’, 4th International Conference of Information Law (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tzanou, M.: Is data protection the same as privacy? An analysis of telecommunications metadata retention measures. J. Internet Law 17(3), 21–34 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: Right to privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 193, 193–220 (1890)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Westin, A.: Privacy and Freedom, The Bodley Head Ltd. London (1970)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academy of European Law (ERA), Metzer Allee 4, 54295, Trier, Germany

    Elitsa Stoeva

Authors
  1. Elitsa Stoeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elitsa Stoeva.

Additional information

This article is based on a presentation made on 18 September 2014 during the Kosovo study visit of candidate judges and prosecutors to ERA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stoeva, E. The Data Retention Directive and the right to privacy. ERA Forum 15, 575–592 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0370-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0370-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation