The UK GDPR, the Immigration Exception and Brexit: Interrogating Open Rights Group v Secretary of State for the Home Department and its Aftermath

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12784
David Erdos
{"title":"The UK GDPR, the Immigration Exception and Brexit: Interrogating <i>Open Rights Group</i> v <i>Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> and its Aftermath","authors":"David Erdos","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note explores the holding, context and aftermath of the judgments which declared the so‐called ʻimmigration exceptionʼ set out in the UK Data Protection Act 2018 incompatible with, and assumed it subject to, the (UK) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) restrictions clause (article 23). The subsequent limitation of this exemption's use to the government is impactful in itself. However, this case has much wider significance. Firstly, the finding that the restrictions clause mandates granular specificity places in jeopardy many exemptions not only in the UK but also in EU States. Secondly, the assumption that this article was engaged is questionable since, as reworded post‐Brexit, it is restricted to limitations laid down in delegated legislation. Nevertheless, this rewording depended on powers limited to addressing post‐Brexit technical ʻdeficienciesʼ and so is ultra vires . The Court of Appeal should have addressed this in order to vindicate the rule of law and separation of powers.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12784","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This note explores the holding, context and aftermath of the judgments which declared the so‐called ʻimmigration exceptionʼ set out in the UK Data Protection Act 2018 incompatible with, and assumed it subject to, the (UK) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) restrictions clause (article 23). The subsequent limitation of this exemption's use to the government is impactful in itself. However, this case has much wider significance. Firstly, the finding that the restrictions clause mandates granular specificity places in jeopardy many exemptions not only in the UK but also in EU States. Secondly, the assumption that this article was engaged is questionable since, as reworded post‐Brexit, it is restricted to limitations laid down in delegated legislation. Nevertheless, this rewording depended on powers limited to addressing post‐Brexit technical ʻdeficienciesʼ and so is ultra vires . The Court of Appeal should have addressed this in order to vindicate the rule of law and separation of powers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国GDPR,移民例外和英国脱欧:审讯开放权利组织诉内政大臣及其后果
本说明探讨了判决的持有,背景和后果,这些判决宣布英国《2018年数据保护法》中规定的所谓“移民例外”与(英国)一般数据保护条例(GDPR)限制条款(第23条)不兼容,并假设其受(英国)一般数据保护条例(GDPR)限制条款的约束。随后对政府使用这一豁免的限制本身是有影响的。然而,这个案例具有更广泛的意义。首先,限制条款强制规定具体细节的发现,不仅在英国,而且在欧盟国家,都危及许多豁免。其次,这篇文章的假设是有问题的,因为在英国脱欧后重新措辞,它仅限于授权立法中规定的限制。然而,这种重新措辞依赖于解决英国脱欧后技术缺陷的权力,因此是越权的。上诉法院本应处理这一问题,以维护法治和三权分立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1