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
© 2025 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 AllHengeler Advises On €7B Baltica 2 Wind Farm Deal Between Ørsted and PGE
2 minute readIsraeli Firm Pearl Cohen Combines with San Francisco IP Boutique
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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