{"id":72289,"date":"2021-10-25T22:30:41","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T20:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-57\/"},"modified":"2021-10-25T22:30:41","modified_gmt":"2021-10-25T20:30:41","slug":"data-protection-insider-issue-57","status":"publish","type":"dpi","link":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/en\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-57\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Insider, Issue 57"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

–\u00a0 M<\/em><\/strong>L. v Slovakia<\/em><\/strong>: Post-Mortem Privacy Protection <\/strong><\/span>–<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

On 14th October, the ECtHR examined the balance between the freedom of speech interests of the Slovak newspapers which had been publishing articles about the sexual abuse convictions by a deceased priest and the private life interests of the priest and his mother in M.L. v Slovakia<\/em>. As to the facts of the case, the priest had been convicted two times \u2013 of sexual abuse and of disorderly behaviour – and had spent the said convictions. Two years after his death, local newspapers published articles about the sexual behaviour of the priest and made allegations about his death. The mother of the priest sought unsuccessfully remedies on national level against the newspapers. In her complaint to the ECtHR, she complained that the dismissal of her case in Slovakia breached her private life interests as protected by Article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR ruled that the domestic courts had not struck a fair balance between the two competing human rights for the following three reasons.<\/u><\/a> First, the Court reminded that individuals do not lose entirely the protection provided by Article 8 ECHR, even if they have been criminally convicted. In casu<\/em>, the contested articles had been published after imposing the criminal convictions and after they had been spent by the priest. Second, the articles contained not only facts drawn from the criminal files, but contained unverified, sensational statements. These \u2018distorted facts and the expressions used must have been upsetting for the applicant and (\u2026) they were of such a nature as to be capable of considerably and directly affecting her feelings as a mother of a deceased son as well as her private life and identity, the reputation of her deceased son being a part and parcel thereof\u2019. Third, building on the above, the Court concluded that \u2018as well as being rather provocative and sensationalist, the articles in question could hardly be considered as having made a contribution to a debate of general interest.\u2019 We note that the case is interesting from many perspectives, including because it concerns the question of the right to post-mortem private life protection and because it demonstrates the link between the protection of private life and personal data of one individual and the private life protection of their relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

–\u00a0<\/strong>EDPB Adopts Revised Guidelines on Restrictions under Article 23 –<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

On 13th October, the EDPB adopted \u2018Guidelines 10\/2020 on restrictions under Article 23 GDPR: Version 2.0\u2019.<\/u><\/a> The Guidelines were adopted at the 56th Plenary session following a public consultation concerning the original version of the Guidelines, which were adopted in December 2020. According to the EDPS: \u2018The guidelines aim to recall the conditions surrounding the use of such restrictions by Member States or the EU legislator in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the GDPR. They provide a thorough analysis of the criteria to apply restrictions, the assessments that need to be observed, how data subjects can exercise their rights after the restrictions are lifted, and the consequences of infringements of Art. 23 GDPR. Additionally, the guidelines analyse how the legislative measures setting out the restrictions need to meet the foreseeability requirement and examine the grounds for the restrictions listed by Art. 23(1) GDPR, and the obligations and rights which may be restricted.\u2019 There is apparently no easy way to see how the consultation proceeded, its outcomes, or what has been changed from the original Guidelines in consequence. This information would be welcome. Such information might, for example, provide insight as to which forms of arguments were taken on board, and which were not.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

–\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>EDPB Agenda for 56th Plenary –<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

On 13th October, the EDPB held its 56th Plenary.<\/u><\/a> In particular, the EDPB considered:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n