DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany?

Diana Dimitrova, P. De Hert
{"title":"DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany?","authors":"Diana Dimitrova, P. De Hert","doi":"10.1177/1023263x241237688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Directive 2016/680 provides for two procedures for the exercise of the rights of access to one's data: a direct one (that is, directly against the law enforcement authority) and an ‘indirect’ one, in which the responsible Data Protection Authority (DPA) exercises the right of access of the data subject against the law enforcement authority which refused the direct access, including by carrying out a legality check on the data processing of the personal data of the individual requesting access. The recent judgment in Ligue des droits humains ASBL treated the question of the powers of DPAs in the framework of this procedure, amongst others, as a matter of DPA independence. Existing literature has observed that the implementing laws of three Member States – Belgium, France and Germany – severely restrict the powers of the DPAs when these perform the ‘indirect’ right of access, for example to carry out the legality check and inform the individuals of the results of the check. In the this article we will argue that these national restrictions constitute an unjustified interference with the requirement on DPA independence in EU data protection law, including in Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x241237688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Directive 2016/680 provides for two procedures for the exercise of the rights of access to one's data: a direct one (that is, directly against the law enforcement authority) and an ‘indirect’ one, in which the responsible Data Protection Authority (DPA) exercises the right of access of the data subject against the law enforcement authority which refused the direct access, including by carrying out a legality check on the data processing of the personal data of the individual requesting access. The recent judgment in Ligue des droits humains ASBL treated the question of the powers of DPAs in the framework of this procedure, amongst others, as a matter of DPA independence. Existing literature has observed that the implementing laws of three Member States – Belgium, France and Germany – severely restrict the powers of the DPAs when these perform the ‘indirect’ right of access, for example to carry out the legality check and inform the individuals of the results of the check. In the this article we will argue that these national restrictions constitute an unjustified interference with the requirement on DPA independence in EU data protection law, including in Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
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
DPA 的独立性和 "间接 "访问--在比利时、法国和德国是虚幻的吗?
第 2016/680 号指令规定了行使个人数据访问权的两种程序:一种是直接程序(即直接针对执法机关),另一种是 "间接 "程序,即负责的数据保护局(DPA)针对拒绝直接访问的执法机关行使数据主体的访问权,包括对请求访问个人数据的数据处理进行合法性检查。最近在 Ligue des droits humains ASBL 案中的判决将 DPA 在该程序框架内的权力问题作为 DPA 的独立性问题处理。现有文献指出,比利时、法国和德国这三个成员国的实施法严格限制了 DPA 在行使 "间接 "访问权时的权力,例如进行合法性检查并将检查结果通知个人。在本文中,我们将论证这些国家限制构成了对欧盟数据保护法(包括《欧盟基本权利宪章》第 8(3)条)中 DPA 独立性要求的无理干涉。
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Non-contractual liability of the EU: Need for a ‘diligent’ administrator test The European Arrest Warrant and the protection of the best interests of the child: The Court's last word on the limits of mutual recognition and the evolving obligations of national judicial authorities OP v. Commune d’Ans: When equality, intersectionality and state neutrality collide DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany? Chilling effect: Turning the poison into an antidote for fundamental rights in Europe
×
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