{"id":72236,"date":"2021-04-22T22:06:29","date_gmt":"2021-04-22T20:06:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-45\/"},"modified":"2021-04-22T22:06:29","modified_gmt":"2021-04-22T20:06:29","slug":"data-protection-insider-issue-45","status":"publish","type":"dpi","link":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/en\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-45\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Insider, Issue 45"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

– Liebscher v Austria: Publication of Divorce Settlement as a Breach of the Right to Privacy<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/em>–<\/a><\/em>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

On 6th April the ECtHR decided in the case of Liebscher v Austria that Austria had not fulfilled its positive obligations to protect the personal data of the applicant under Article 8 ECHR. As to the facts of the case, the applicant had divorced his wife and wanted to transfer his share of the house to her. In order to register this transfer, the local land register court requested, per law, that the full divorce settlement be presented in order to be published in the land register. The applicant objected by arguing that the full divorce settlement contains much more personal data than necessary for the purposes of the public land register. It included even data concerning their minor children and his salary. The local courts rejected his suggestion that only the relevant excerpts be made accessible to the public by arguing that the national laws required the publication of the full divorce settlement. When he filed an Article 8 ECHR complaint with the domestic courts, which included references to the Austrian data protection legislation, the domestic courts merely noted that the interference with his data protection rights had a legal basis in national law. They also rejected his request for a preliminary ruling reference to the CJEU that Article 52 (1) CFREU has been breached. Taking all this into account, the ECtHR ruled that there has been a violation of Article 8 ECHR on account of the fact that the domestic courts had failed to balance the competing interests into account and thus to protect his personal data<\/a>. The Court reasoned that it \u2018\u2026 therefore cannot but conclude that the domestic courts never actually examined the core of the applicant\u2019s claim because of the lack of a comprehensive examination of the question whether the legal obligation to produce the full original divorce settlement \u2013 which could serve as basis for the entry in the land register and subsequently be published in the document archive \u2013 was compatible with the effective enjoyment, by the applicant, of his right to protection of his personal data. The domestic courts therefore have failed to comply with their procedural obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to conduct a comprehensive assessment of a matter affecting the applicant\u2019s privacy rights \u2026\u2019.We note that this is one of the ECtHR cases which clearly has at its core a purely data protection dispute. It is also interesting to note that it seems like the Austrian law on data protection was automatically \u2018trumped\u2019 by pre-existing laws. It remains to be seen whether this will continue being the case in the future with the growing of importance of the GDPR.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

– <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a>EDPB Holds 48th Plenary Session<\/span><\/strong> –<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

On 13th April the EDPB held its 48th Plenary Session. During the session, the following documents were adopted<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n