{"id":72096,"date":"2020-02-16T20:14:35","date_gmt":"2020-02-16T19:14:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-16\/"},"modified":"2020-02-16T20:14:35","modified_gmt":"2020-02-16T19:14:35","slug":"data-protection-insider-issue-16","status":"publish","type":"dpi","link":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/en\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-16\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Insider, Issue 16"},"content":{"rendered":"

–\u00a0<\/strong>ECtHR Rules on Telecommunications Subscriber Registration –<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

On 30th January, the ECtHR ruled on the Breyer<\/em> case. The facts of the case were as follows: two German nationals bought pre-paid SIM cards. In the course of buying these SIM cards, they were required to provide certain personal information \u2013 including, for example, names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth etc.. This information, in line with Article 111 of the German Telecommunications Act, was required to be stored and, in line with Articles 112 and 113 of the same act, could be accessed and used by a number of German authorities \u2013 mostly for the prevention and detection of crime. The applicants challenged Articles 111, 112 and 113 of the Telecommunications Act on the basis these required a disproportionate collection and processing of their personal data and constituted an infringement of Article 8 \u2013 right to respect for private and family life \u2013 and Article 10 \u2013 freedom of expression \u2013 rights under the ECHR. The Court found no violation of Article 8 and did not consider Article 10. Whilst many in the data protection community may have expected a judgment with high significance for EU data retention discussions, this is not what has been delivered<\/a>. The Court was cautious to highlight the substantial difference between the issues at hand in the case \u2013 the collection of subscriber data \u2013 and those in EU data retention discussions \u2013 the retention of communications metadata. Even in the judgment delivered, the Court left significant issues open. Two stand out. First, the Court made several statements as to the existence and function of safeguards concerning official access to stored data. The Court failed, however, to provide extensive explanation of the reasoning behind some of these statements \u2013 for example: \u2018the obligation to submit a written request for information was likely to encourage the authority to obtain the information only where it was sufficiently needed\u2019. Second, the Court recognised that legal obligations to retain subscriber personal data to combat crime represented a reasonable response in relation to \u2018changes in communication behaviour and in the means of telecommunications\u2019. The Court failed, however, to elaborate why the lack of empirical evidence that such retention led to a reduction in crime should not be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the measure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0–\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>EDPB Adopts Seven Documents –<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

On 28th and 29th January, the EDPB had its 17th plenary session. As a result of the session, the EDPB adopted the following seven documents<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n