The GDPR and Processing of Personal Data for Research Purposes: What About Case Law?

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
J. Reichel
{"title":"The GDPR and Processing of Personal Data for Research Purposes: What About Case Law?","authors":"J. Reichel","doi":"10.54648/euro2021007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Case law regularly includes personal data on identifiable persons, often of a rather sensitive nature. This makes the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) relevant. However, the processing of personal data in case law has until recently not been questioned from the point of view of data protection of the individuals concerned. The Court of Justice of the European Union has taken steps ensure such protection for individuals appearing before the courts. Sweden has chosen another path. As transparency is a highly treasured in Sweden, including transparency in the judiciary, restricting access to the full verdict is sensitive. Instead, the processing of personal data has been restricted in a certain areas, such as research. In order to fulfill the requirements for an ‘appropriate safeguard’ under Article 89 GDPR, an ethical approval is needed for all research on specific categories of sensitive personal data, with no exception for publicly-available official documents like case law. The question posed is how the interest in protection of personal data retrieved from case law can be reconciled with the interest in transparency of the judicial process. It is concluded that even though requirements for an ethical approval of legal research hardly can be seen as a relevant ‘appropriate safeguard’, it cannot be denied that there is a legitimate interest of identifiable persons in case law to have their rights in personal data at least considered. Courts should therefore be stronger in elucidating when and why transparency is of overriding importance, and when and why data protection and the interest of secrecy should prevail.\nData protection, transparency, case law, official documents, secrecy, sensitive data, research exception, appropriate safeguard, ethical approval","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021007","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: 0

Abstract

Case law regularly includes personal data on identifiable persons, often of a rather sensitive nature. This makes the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) relevant. However, the processing of personal data in case law has until recently not been questioned from the point of view of data protection of the individuals concerned. The Court of Justice of the European Union has taken steps ensure such protection for individuals appearing before the courts. Sweden has chosen another path. As transparency is a highly treasured in Sweden, including transparency in the judiciary, restricting access to the full verdict is sensitive. Instead, the processing of personal data has been restricted in a certain areas, such as research. In order to fulfill the requirements for an ‘appropriate safeguard’ under Article 89 GDPR, an ethical approval is needed for all research on specific categories of sensitive personal data, with no exception for publicly-available official documents like case law. The question posed is how the interest in protection of personal data retrieved from case law can be reconciled with the interest in transparency of the judicial process. It is concluded that even though requirements for an ethical approval of legal research hardly can be seen as a relevant ‘appropriate safeguard’, it cannot be denied that there is a legitimate interest of identifiable persons in case law to have their rights in personal data at least considered. Courts should therefore be stronger in elucidating when and why transparency is of overriding importance, and when and why data protection and the interest of secrecy should prevail. Data protection, transparency, case law, official documents, secrecy, sensitive data, research exception, appropriate safeguard, ethical approval
GDPR和出于研究目的的个人数据处理:判例法如何?
判例法经常包括可识别人员的个人数据,这些数据往往具有相当敏感的性质。这使得《欧盟通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)具有相关性。然而,直到最近,从保护有关个人数据的角度来看,判例法中对个人数据的处理一直没有受到质疑。欧洲联盟法院已采取措施,确保对出庭的个人提供这种保护。瑞典选择了另一条道路。由于透明度在瑞典备受珍视,包括司法部门的透明度,限制获得完整判决是敏感的。相反,个人数据的处理在某些领域受到了限制,比如研究。为了满足《通用数据保护条例》第89条规定的“适当保障”要求,对特定类别的敏感个人数据的所有研究都需要获得道德批准,判例法等公开的官方文件也不例外。提出的问题是,如何将保护从判例法中检索到的个人数据的利益与司法程序透明度的利益相协调。结论是,尽管法律研究的伦理批准要求很难被视为相关的“适当保障”,但不能否认,在判例法中,至少考虑到可识别人员在个人数据方面的权利是符合其合法利益的。因此,法院应更有力地阐明何时以及为什么透明度具有压倒一切的重要性,以及何时以及为什么数据保护和保密利益应占上风。数据保护、透明度、判例法、官方文件、保密、敏感数据、研究例外、适当保障、道德审批
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
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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