Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

Immigration Exemption and the European Convention on Human Rights journal article

Matthew White

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 5 (2019), Issue 1, Page 26 - 42

The European Union has introduced the General Data Protection Regulation to reform and update data protection laws across Member States. To comply, the United Kingdom has introduced the Data Protection Act 2018. This article focuses on one schedule of the new Act, a data protection exemption for effective immigration control purposes. Considering that the UK Parliament has not implemented the Charter of Fundamental Rights into domestic law post-Brexit, it is therefore necessary to consider this exemption under the European Convention on Human Rights. Recital 73 of the Regulation requires any restrictions on the protection of personal data to be compatible with the Convention. In concluding that the exemption is incompatible with the Convention, this will highlight that not only would the UK be failing their existing human rights obligations but also raises concerns about the UK’s adequacy status as a third country post-Brexit. Keywords: Immigration, Exemptions, Article 8 ECHR, Effective Remedy, Discrimination

Key GDPR Elements in Adequacy Findings of Countries That Have Ratified Convention 108 journal article

Sara Leonor Duque de Carvalho

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 5 (2019), Issue 1, Page 54 - 64

The article discusses the steps leading to the adoption of an adequacy decision by countries that have ratified Convention 108. Despite heading towards the GDPR standards, mere accession to Convention 108 is not enough to suggest that a country's data protection level is adequate. The article points out the difficulty of assessing adequacy, taking into account that it requires not only a common effort from different bodies, but also a deep analysis of the legal data protection framework. In fact, there are a set of data protection principles and enforcement mechanisms, which can be deemed essential when assessing adequacy. Therein lies the difficulty of agreeing on the ‘core’ elements that the European Commission should take into account when adopting this adequacy decision. In the light of the Schrems judgment, the EU adequacy standards for a third country were made significantly more onerous, requiring a level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU. But what does ‘essentially equivalent’ mean? Keywords: Adequacy, Convention 108, GDPR, Third Countries, Essentially Equivalent, Core Elements

Challenging the EU's ‘Right to Be Forgotten’? Society's ‘Right to Know’ in Japan journal article

Frederike Zufall

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 5 (2019), Issue 1, Page 17 - 25

This article asks the extent to which the concept of the ‘right to be forgotten’ has been received by Japanese law – or whether, to the contrary, Japan is challenging the EU's concept. In a 2017 judgment, the Japanese Supreme Court rejected a request for injunctive relief to delete search results from the search engine Google. The decisive argument focused on the public interest around the facts concerned: a crime committed by the applicant several years earlier. The court did not just award the right to freedom of expression to Google, but centred its decision on society's right to know – thereby putting society's interest before that of the individual. In the light of the pending adoption of the EU-Japan adequacy decision, this divergence from the EU concept raises doubts as to whether 'adequacy' can be achieved between legal systems founded on cultural differences. Can we still afford to base our legal regimes on different social consciousness in the era of a borderless Internet? Keywords: Data Protection Law, Japan, Right to Be Forgotten, Adequacy Decision

  • «
  • 1
  • »