EU Court Adviser: Data Privacy Laws Apply Even in National Security Cases
The opinion was delivered ahead of forthcoming judgments on four cases in which national security measures were challenged on grounds that they failed to protect citizens' data privacy: one from the U.K., two from France, and one from Belgium.
January 15, 2020 at 05:43 PM
3 minute read
In a nonbinding opinion at the European Court of Justice, an advocate general said that under the 2002 Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, EU member states cannot require telecommunications companies to hand over bulk data to national security agencies.
If nations want to collect data on individuals, they must have permission from an independent authority, inform the person, and keep the data within the EU, the court adviser said.
The opinion, written by advocate general Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona, was delivered ahead of forthcoming judgments on a number of cases in which national security measures have been challenged on grounds that they failed to protect citizens' data privacy: one is from the United Kingdom, two are from France, and one is from Belgium.
Opinions from the EU Court of Justice's 11 advocates general are not binding but are followed by the court in the vast majority of cases. If its ruling is consistent with the opinion, it would invalidate a U.K. law that requires telecommunications companies to hand over bulk data to the British security agency MI6 and others. It would also nullify Belgian and French laws requiring technology companies like Facebook to retain location data on their users in case that data is needed in an investigation.
The French government established its law requiring telecommunications companies and internet service providers to store all traffic and data location after the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris at the Bataclan music venue, which resulted in the deaths of 90 people. Similar measures were adopted in Belgium following attacks there in 2016.
The U.K. is scheduled to leave the EU on Jan. 31, but it would still be subject to EU regulations until the end of the year while it transitions out of the political and economic union.
Sánchez-Bordona wrote in his opinion that EU data privacy rules do not interfere with security and intelligence services' ability to act to protect public safety, despite fears expressed by governments.
The Court of Justice has resisted arguments made by the U.K. and others in the past. In 2014, it invalidated the European Union Data Retention Directive, which required companies to maintain personal data in case it was needed by security authorities. The judges found it didn't offer sufficient privacy protections for users.
And in a 2016 ruling, the court held that indiscriminate location data collection is also illegal in the European Union.
A final ruling in all four cases is expected later this year.
|Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Are You Not Profiting From Postmasters’ Misery?’—Politicians Grill HSF, Dentons on Post Office Conduct
'Not a Good Look'—FCA Fines Barclays £40M But Accused of Incompetence
Gibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250