Procedural Challenges of Cross-border Cooperation and Consistency in Personal Data Protection in the EU

IF 1.1 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Grega Rudolf, Polonca Kovač
{"title":"Procedural Challenges of Cross-border Cooperation and Consistency in Personal Data Protection in the EU","authors":"Grega Rudolf, Polonca Kovač","doi":"10.2478/nispa-2023-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data protection is an increasingly important topic in the European administrative field at national and cross-border levels. Such a trend reflects different phenomena in contemporary society, which further leads to a more focused concern for a harmonised elaboration by the Member States despite their autonomy, in principle, regarding EU law implementation. However, as revealed by the Slovenian case in this article, the European Data Protection Board and national supervising authorities, mostly information commissioners, express the need to regulate some issues more decidedly. Interestingly, yet not surprisingly, their focus is on procedural aspects, as according to administrative science and several European Commission documents, procedure strongly influences the results. As a result, the article elaborates on the relevant procedural issues to be addressed to ensure a harmonised enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in force since 2018. Various research methods are employed, combining qualitative, normative, and comparative analyses and quantitative approaches, emphasising statistical data obtained from annual reports for 2020, 2021, and 2022. The results show a lack of procedural provisions in several aspects, including the definition of the parties to the procedure and their defence rights, particularly access to the file, to be heard, and complain, as well as one-stop-shop access to legal protection, deadlines, and investigation powers. Such gaps are expected to be covered by procedural institutions enshrined in National Administrative Procedure Acts (APA). However, as suggested by the Slovenian experience, such a solution is minimal due to differing national regulations and relatively low awareness of APA relevance in data protection even among supervising authorities. Hence, the authors argue that there is a need to develop and adopt standard EU rules to regulate such issues. Points for Practitioners The article refers to data protection within theoretical, normative, practical, comparative, and national dimensions. In addition to analysing statistical data regarding procedural issues of cross-collaborative application of GDPR in the Member States - primarily Slovenia - the article provides practical implications of legislative, organisational, and IT adaptations required for harmonising EU-wide enforcement of GDPR. The insights provided herein can support the development of similar solutions in other EU countries. Therefore, the research findings are relevant for practitioners from various European administrations who are in charge of implementing GDPR and, specifically, supervising its implementation, as well as for policymakers and legislators in their respective areas of data protection and administrative procedural law. The findings will also benefit the European Commission when drafting new legislation to enhance cooperation and consistency between Member States in enforcing personal data rights set by GDPR.","PeriodicalId":43378,"journal":{"name":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2023-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Data protection is an increasingly important topic in the European administrative field at national and cross-border levels. Such a trend reflects different phenomena in contemporary society, which further leads to a more focused concern for a harmonised elaboration by the Member States despite their autonomy, in principle, regarding EU law implementation. However, as revealed by the Slovenian case in this article, the European Data Protection Board and national supervising authorities, mostly information commissioners, express the need to regulate some issues more decidedly. Interestingly, yet not surprisingly, their focus is on procedural aspects, as according to administrative science and several European Commission documents, procedure strongly influences the results. As a result, the article elaborates on the relevant procedural issues to be addressed to ensure a harmonised enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in force since 2018. Various research methods are employed, combining qualitative, normative, and comparative analyses and quantitative approaches, emphasising statistical data obtained from annual reports for 2020, 2021, and 2022. The results show a lack of procedural provisions in several aspects, including the definition of the parties to the procedure and their defence rights, particularly access to the file, to be heard, and complain, as well as one-stop-shop access to legal protection, deadlines, and investigation powers. Such gaps are expected to be covered by procedural institutions enshrined in National Administrative Procedure Acts (APA). However, as suggested by the Slovenian experience, such a solution is minimal due to differing national regulations and relatively low awareness of APA relevance in data protection even among supervising authorities. Hence, the authors argue that there is a need to develop and adopt standard EU rules to regulate such issues. Points for Practitioners The article refers to data protection within theoretical, normative, practical, comparative, and national dimensions. In addition to analysing statistical data regarding procedural issues of cross-collaborative application of GDPR in the Member States - primarily Slovenia - the article provides practical implications of legislative, organisational, and IT adaptations required for harmonising EU-wide enforcement of GDPR. The insights provided herein can support the development of similar solutions in other EU countries. Therefore, the research findings are relevant for practitioners from various European administrations who are in charge of implementing GDPR and, specifically, supervising its implementation, as well as for policymakers and legislators in their respective areas of data protection and administrative procedural law. The findings will also benefit the European Commission when drafting new legislation to enhance cooperation and consistency between Member States in enforcing personal data rights set by GDPR.
欧盟个人数据保护的跨境合作与一致性面临的程序挑战
在欧洲国家和跨境层面的行政管理领域,数据保护是一个日益重要的主题。这种趋势反映了当代社会的不同现象,进一步导致各成员国更加关注统一的阐述,尽管原则上它们在执行欧盟法律方面享有自主权。然而,正如本文中斯洛文尼亚的案例所揭示的那样,欧洲数据保护委员会和国家监督机构,主要是信息专员,都表示有必要对某些问题进行更明确的规范。有趣但并不令人惊讶的是,他们将重点放在了程序方面,因为根据行政学和欧盟委员会的一些文件,程序对结果有很大的影响。因此,文章阐述了为确保自 2018 年起生效的《一般数据保护条例》(GDPR)的统一执行而需要解决的相关程序问题。文章采用了多种研究方法,将定性、规范和比较分析与定量方法相结合,强调从 2020 年、2021 年和 2022 年年度报告中获得的统计数据。研究结果表明,在多个方面缺乏程序性规定,包括程序当事方的定义及其辩护权,特别是查阅档案、陈述意见和投诉,以及一站式获得法律保护、期限和调查权。国家行政程序法》(APA)中规定的程序机构有望弥补这些不足。然而,正如斯洛文尼亚的经验所表明的那样,由于各国的法规不同,甚至监督机构对《国家行政程序法》在数据保护方面的相关性认识也相对较低,因此这种解决方案微乎其微。因此,作者认为有必要制定并采用标准的欧盟规则来规范此类问题。给从业人员的建议 文章从理论、规范、实践、比较和国家层面论述了数据保护问题。除了分析有关成员国(主要是斯洛文尼亚)交叉合作适用 GDPR 的程序问题的统计数据外,文章还提供了在欧盟范围内统一执行 GDPR 所需的立法、组织和信息技术调整的实际影响。本文提供的见解可为其他欧盟国家开发类似解决方案提供支持。因此,这些研究成果对负责实施 GDPR(特别是监督其实施)的欧洲各行政部门的从业人员,以及各自数据保护和行政程序法领域的政策制定者和立法者都有借鉴意义。研究结果还将有助于欧盟委员会起草新的立法,以加强成员国在执行 GDPR 规定的个人数据权利方面的合作和一致性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
10
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信