Collection of location data in criminal proceedings – European (the EU and Strasbourg) standards
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.503Parole chiave:
Criminal procedure, Human rights, Right to privacy, Location data, Data retention.Abstract
This article deals with the problem of collecting, retaining and processing location data for use in criminal proceedings. The collection of location data is an interference with the right to privacy (the Article 8 of the ECHR, the Article 7 of the Charter). However, such interference is permissible if it pursues the aims indicated in Article 8(2) of the ECHR (prevention of and fight against serious crime, protection of general security, national security). Therefore, the question arises as to when the procedural authorities may obtain location data (what offences may justify interference with the right to privacy) and what conditions should be met by national law with regard to this issue. The ECtHR and the CJEU are increasingly dealing with cases that concern the collection of location data in real time and data retention by telecommunications service providers. This requires an assessment of whether a European standard has now been developed and, if so, what is the standard?
Downloads
Riferimenti bibliografici
BREYER, Patric. Telecommunication Data Retention. European Law Journal, v. 11, no. 3, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2005.00264.x
BU-PASHA, Shakila, ALEN-SAVIKKO, Anette, MEIKINEN, Jenna, GUINNESS, Robert, KORPISAAR, Päivi. EU Law Perspectives on Location Data Privacy in Smartphones and Informed Consent for Transparency. European Data Protection Law Review vol. 2, no. 3, 2016; https://doi.org/10.21552/EDPL/2016/3/7
CELESTE, Edoardo. The Court of Justice and the Ban on Bulk Data Retention: Expansive Potential and Future Scenarios. European Constitutional Law Review, v. 15, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019619000038
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. C 326/391 on 26 October 2012. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT.
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking; published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 335/8 of 25 October 2004, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020. C-511/18, C-512/18, C-520/18, La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net (hereinafter: La Quadrature du Net and the others). http://curia.europa.eu/
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of 2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C-207/16, http://curia.europa.eu/
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 and Watson, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, http://curia.europa.eu/
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of 6 October 2020, Privacy International, C-623/17, http://curia.europa.eu/
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of 8 April 2020, Digital Rights Ireland, C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, http://curia.europa.eu/
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2011/36 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 101/1 of April 2011, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2011/92 of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 335/1 of 17 December 2011, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 141/73 of 5 June 2015; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA; The Official Journal of the European Union no. L 119/89 on 4 April 2016; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
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 (Directive on privacy and electronic communications); The Official Journal of the European Union no. L 201/37 on 31 July 2002; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
DOCKSEY, Christopher, HIJMANS, Hielke, The Court of Justice as a Key Player in Privacy and Data Protection: An Overview of Recent Trends in Case Law at the Start of a New Era of Data Protection Law. European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL), vol. 5, no. 3, 2019. https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/3/6
DOCKSEY, Christopher. Ministerio Fiscal: Holding the line on ePrivacy. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 585–594, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X19853714
EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, adopted in Rome on 4 November 1950. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Decision of 12 May 2020, Ringler v Austria, case no. 2309/10, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Decision of 29 September 2020, Tretter and the others v Austria, case no. 3599/10, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 10 July 2019, Big Brother Watch and the Others v the United Kingdom, case no. 58170/13, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 1 March 2007, Heglas v the Czech Republic, case no. 5935/02, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v Hungary, case no. 37138/14; https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 2 September 2010, Uzun v Germany, case no. 35623/05; https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 4 December 2015, Roman Zakharov v Rosji, case no. 47143/06. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 8 December 2009, Previti v Italy, case no. 45291/06, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 8 February 2018, Ben Faiza v France, case no. 31446/12. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.
GARLICKI, Lech in: GARLICKI, Lech, HOFMAŃSKI, Piotr. Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności. Tom I. Komentarz do artykułów 1–18, Warszawa 2011
JASIŃSKI, Wojciech, The limits of interference with the right to liberty, privacy property and privilege against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings – European standards, in: SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.), The Model of Acceptable Interference with the Rights and Freedoms of a Individual in the Criminal Process, Warsaw 2017.
MURPHY, Maria Helen. Data Retention in the Aftermath of Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger. Irish Criminal Law Journal t. 105, v. 24, no. 4, 2014
OJANEN, Tuomas. Privacy Is More Than Just a Seven-Letter Word: The Court of Justice of the European Union Sets Constitutional Limits on Mass Surveillance: Court of Justice of the European Union Decision of 8 April 2014 in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others, European Constitutional Law Review, v. 10, no. 3; https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019614001345
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 15 January 2020, C‑623/17, Privacy International. http://curia.europa.eu/
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Campos Sanchez-Bordona, delivered on 15 January 2020, case no. C-520/18; http://curia.europa.eu/
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Paolo Mengozzi, delivered on 8 September 2016, opinion 1/15; http://curia.europa.eu/
REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation; published in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 119/1 of 4 May 2016; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
STACHNIK-ROGALSKA, Agnieszka; ROGALSKI Maciej. Udostępnianie billingów rozmów telefonicznych. Państwo i Prawo no. 8.
STEIN Shlomit, In Search of ‘Red Lines’ in the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR on Fair Trial Rights. Israel Law Review v. 50, no. 2, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223717000073
THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION; consolidate version published in the Official Journal no C 326 on 26 October 2012. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/.
THIERSE, Stephen. The Never-Ending Story of Data Retention in the EU, [in:] THEIERSE, Stephen, BADANJAK, Sanja. Opposition in the EU Multi-Level Polity. Legal Mobilization against the Data Retention Directive. Springer 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47162-0
ZUBIK, Marek, PODKOWIK, Jan, RYBSKI, Robert. Prywatność. Wolność u progu D-day. Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, t. XL, p. 391-408, 2018, https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/gdanskie_studia_prawnicze/article/view/3501
Dowloads
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
Come citare
