隐私国际和Quadrature du Net:数据保留传奇的一步前进两步后退?

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2022007
M. Tzanou, Spyridoula Karyda
{"title":"隐私国际和Quadrature du Net:数据保留传奇的一步前进两步后退?","authors":"M. Tzanou, Spyridoula Karyda","doi":"10.54648/euro2022007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present contribution aims to critically reflect on the future direction of data retention at the EU and the national levels by discussing the lessons arising from two seminal Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decisions: Privacy International and Quadrature du Net. The article addresses four main themes: (1) the broad reach of EU data privacy law, (2) the detailed typology of permissible data retention models and the conditions applicable to these, (3) the evolving interaction between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases of bulk surveillance, and (4) the relevant legislative developments regarding data retention enshrined in the proposed ePrivacy Regulation. It advances four main lines of criticism. The first concerns the Court’s reasoning regarding the expansive scope of application of EU data protection law that – while anticipated – appears unconvincing. The second regards the shortcomings and weaknesses in the CJEU’s analysis laying down a taxonomy of permissible data retention systems. The third line of criticism is broader and concerns the progressive re-legitimisation of bulk as well as other surveillance models that seems to be the path undertaken by both the CJEU and ECtHR. Finally, we criticize the ways the EU legislature is trying to ‘circumvent’ the CJEU’s data retention rulings.\ndata retention, EU fundamental rights, Privacy International, Quadrature du Net, bulk data retention, EU data protection law, European Court of Human Rights Big Brother Watch, GDPR, ePrivacy, UK adequacy decisions after Brexit","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privacy International and Quadrature du Net: One Step Forward Two Steps Back in the Data Retention Saga?\",\"authors\":\"M. Tzanou, Spyridoula Karyda\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/euro2022007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present contribution aims to critically reflect on the future direction of data retention at the EU and the national levels by discussing the lessons arising from two seminal Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decisions: Privacy International and Quadrature du Net. The article addresses four main themes: (1) the broad reach of EU data privacy law, (2) the detailed typology of permissible data retention models and the conditions applicable to these, (3) the evolving interaction between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases of bulk surveillance, and (4) the relevant legislative developments regarding data retention enshrined in the proposed ePrivacy Regulation. It advances four main lines of criticism. The first concerns the Court’s reasoning regarding the expansive scope of application of EU data protection law that – while anticipated – appears unconvincing. The second regards the shortcomings and weaknesses in the CJEU’s analysis laying down a taxonomy of permissible data retention systems. The third line of criticism is broader and concerns the progressive re-legitimisation of bulk as well as other surveillance models that seems to be the path undertaken by both the CJEU and ECtHR. Finally, we criticize the ways the EU legislature is trying to ‘circumvent’ the CJEU’s data retention rulings.\\ndata retention, EU fundamental rights, Privacy International, Quadrature du Net, bulk data retention, EU data protection law, European Court of Human Rights Big Brother Watch, GDPR, ePrivacy, UK adequacy decisions after Brexit\",\"PeriodicalId\":43955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Public Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本贡献旨在通过讨论欧盟法院(CJEU)两项具有开创性意义的裁决所产生的经验教训,批判性地反思欧盟和国家层面数据保留的未来方向:隐私国际和Quadrature du Net。这篇文章涉及四个主要主题:(1)欧盟数据隐私法的广泛范围,(2)允许的数据保留模式的详细类型和适用于这些模式的条件,(3)欧盟法院和欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)在大规模监控案件中不断演变的互动,以及(4)拟议的《电子隐私条例》中关于数据保留的相关立法发展。它提出了四条主要的批评路线。第一个问题涉及法院关于欧盟数据保护法适用范围扩大的推理,尽管这是意料之中的,但似乎没有说服力。第二个问题是欧盟委员会分析中的缺陷和弱点,该分析对允许的数据保留系统进行了分类。第三条批评范围更广,涉及批量以及其他监控模式的逐步重新合法化,这似乎是欧盟法院和欧洲人权法院共同采取的道路。最后,我们批评了欧盟立法机构试图“规避”CJEU数据保留法规的方式。数据保留、欧盟基本权利、隐私国际、Quadrature du Net、批量数据保留、欧洲数据保护法、欧洲人权法院“老大哥观察”、GDPR、ePrivacy、英国脱欧后的充分性决定
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Privacy International and Quadrature du Net: One Step Forward Two Steps Back in the Data Retention Saga?
The present contribution aims to critically reflect on the future direction of data retention at the EU and the national levels by discussing the lessons arising from two seminal Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decisions: Privacy International and Quadrature du Net. The article addresses four main themes: (1) the broad reach of EU data privacy law, (2) the detailed typology of permissible data retention models and the conditions applicable to these, (3) the evolving interaction between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases of bulk surveillance, and (4) the relevant legislative developments regarding data retention enshrined in the proposed ePrivacy Regulation. It advances four main lines of criticism. The first concerns the Court’s reasoning regarding the expansive scope of application of EU data protection law that – while anticipated – appears unconvincing. The second regards the shortcomings and weaknesses in the CJEU’s analysis laying down a taxonomy of permissible data retention systems. The third line of criticism is broader and concerns the progressive re-legitimisation of bulk as well as other surveillance models that seems to be the path undertaken by both the CJEU and ECtHR. Finally, we criticize the ways the EU legislature is trying to ‘circumvent’ the CJEU’s data retention rulings. data retention, EU fundamental rights, Privacy International, Quadrature du Net, bulk data retention, EU data protection law, European Court of Human Rights Big Brother Watch, GDPR, ePrivacy, UK adequacy decisions after Brexit
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
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