Advertisement

ERA Forum

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 285–306 | Cite as

The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on Social Security

  • Dirk BieresbornEmail author
Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

The EU-General-Data-Protection-Regulation (GDPR) provides a Europe-wide and mostly uniform system of Data-Protection, which has also impact on social security. Public authorities must have a legitimate reason for processing data; the legal grounds are given by the GDPR, some have to be specified by domestic law. The processing of special categories of data is strictly prohibited, if there is not an exemption. Consent is not always necessary in order to process personal data, but when it must be freely and unambiguously given and can be just as easily withdrawn. The doctor-client-privilege has to be observed separately. In respect to the rights of the data subject it has always to be checked, if the rights are applicable or if there is a restriction by the GDPR itself or by domestic law. Infringement of the GDPR can cause damage compensation, fines and inadmissibility of evidence.

Keywords

Data-protection Consent Doctor-client-privilege Processing Special categories of data Big Data 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forgó/Helfrich/Schneider, Beschäftigtendatenschutz, 3. Aufl. 2019 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feiler/Forgó/Weigl, GDPR—A Commentary Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CJEU 29.6.2010-C-28/08 P Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CJEU 13.5.2014 – C-131/12 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Böckenförde, Auf dem Weg zur elektronischen Privatsphäre, JZ 2008 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CJEU 24.11.2011 - C-468/10 and C-469/10 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer/Hölscheid, Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 5. ed., 2019 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The development, how a directive evolved into a regulation describes Albrecht, The EU’s New Data Protection Law—How A Directive Evolved Into A Regulation, CRi 2016 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CJEU 28.03.1985 - C - 272/83 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bieresborn, Sozialdatenschutz nach Inkrafttreten der EU-Datenschutzgrundverordnung - Anpassungen des nationalen Sozialdatenschutzes an das europäische Recht, NZS 2017 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CJEU 20.5.2003 - C - 465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    CJEU 16.12.2008, C-73/07 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kühling/Bucher, DS-GVO, Art 9 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    CJEU 8.4.14 C-293/12, C-594/12 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paal/Pauly, DSGVO BDSG, 2. Aufl. 2018, Art. 6 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO 2. Aufl. 2018 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Molnár-Gábor/Kaffenberger, EU-US-Privacy-Shield – ein Schutzschild mit Löchern?- ZD 2017 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    CJEU 6.10.2015 - C-362/14 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mutkoski: Regulation of Patient Health Information and the Use of Cloud Computing Technologies, CRi 2017 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Parliament resolution of 6 April 2017 on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-US Privacy Shield Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bieresborn: Auswirkungen der DSGVO auf das gerichtliche Verfahren. DRiZ 2019 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    BGH, Urteil vom 29.11.2016 – VI ZR 530/15 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bieresborn/Giesberts-Kaminski, Auswirkungen der EU-Datenschutz-Grundverordnung und der Anpassungsgesetze auf die Sozialgerichtsbarkeit (Teil II), Rechte der betroffenen Personen im Gerichtsverfahren, SGb 2018 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    CJEU 20.12.2017 - C-434/16 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States, 1920, United States Reports, Vol. 251, Oct. Term 1919 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    BVerfG, Beschl. v. 30.11.2010 – 2 BvR 2101/09 – NJW 2011 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Europäische Rechtsakademie (ERA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KasselGermany

Personalised recommendations