Delimiting the Ambit of Responsibility of Intermediary Publishers for Third Party Rights in European Data Protection: Towards a Synthetic Interpretation of the EU acquis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Erdos
Author(s):  
David Erdos

This chapter explores the development of European data protection, both as a codified form of regulation and as a human right, from its inception to the present day. In contrast to more ʻclassicalʼ rights, such as freedom of expression and even privacy, data protection only emerged as a discrete concept with the rise of computer power in the 1970s. The focus in Europe from this time has been on elaborating a progressively more detailed and harmonized regulatory code to govern the processing of personal data across the EU and wider European Economic Area (EEA). Advisory Council of Europe Resolutions in the 1970s led to a binding but optional Data Protection Convention in the 1980s, to a mandatory Data Protection Directive in the 1990s, and finally to a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the 2010s which is directly applicable across the EU. In addition, data protection has increasingly been recognized as a fundamental right and, in particular, was included within the EU Charter that was drafted in 2000 and acquired pan-EU legal status in 2009. These developments have dovetailed with the emergence of a significant body of relevant Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) jurisprudence. However, the regulatory Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) also remain critical interpretative actors and have issued a number of important opinions including through the Article 29 Working Party that under the GDPR has become the European Data Protection Board.


Author(s):  
Laura Bradford ◽  
Mateo Aboy ◽  
Kathleen Liddell

Abstract International health research increasingly depends on collaboration and combination using medical data to advance treatment and drug discovery. The European Union (EU), through its General Data Protection Regulation, has tightened the rules for sharing data across borders to protect individual privacy. These new rules threaten cooperation between the EU and the USA, the two largest public funders of biomedical research. This article analyzes the primary pathway for sharing research data with the USA, the US–EU Privacy Shield††, and argues that the Shield is ill-suited to support complex health studies. Its legitimacy is in question under both EU and US law, and its terms are too restrictive for the variety of exchanges underlying research, treatment, and care. As an alternative, we propose that the USA seek an additional sector-based adequacy determination based on the existing US health privacy law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. A sector-specific approach to adequacy for health would avoid many of the most contentious issues that divide the USA and EU on data protection. It could also serve as a model for other third-party jurisdictions and facilitate international harmonization of health research practices.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deryck Beyleveld ◽  
Mark Taylor

AbstractThis paper has three parts. In Part One, we argue that while biological samples and genetic information extracted from them are not (in terms of Directive 95/46/EC) personal data in and of themselves, each is capable of being personal data in appropriate contexts. In Part Two, we argue that if this is correct, then the requirement for sources of human biological samples to give informed consent for any use of their samples (which the European Court of Justice has maintained to be a fundamental principle of EC law but not one to be enforced via patent law) must be enforced by data protection law in the EU. Finally, in Part Three, we consider the implications of our position for the capacity of Directive 95/46/EC to adequately protect third party interests given the shared nature of genetic data.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-42
Author(s):  
Maria De Almeida Alves

This Paper will address the interplay between the Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services and the current EU data protection framework, namely the General Data Protection Regulation. Albeit the Directive has the aim of protecting consumers, has it gone too far and made a crack in the data protection EU legal framework? Can personal data be treated as a commodity or is its scope as a counter-performance subject to a particular interpretation? I shall analyze these questions in light of the European Data Protection Supervisor’s Opinion 4/2017 and the European Data Protection Board’s Guidelines 2/2019.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annegret Bendiek ◽  
Magnus Römer

Purpose This paper aims to explain how the EU projects its own data protection regime to third states and the US in particular. Digital services have become a central element in the transatlantic economy. A substantial part of that trade is associated with the transfer of data, most of it personal, requiring many of the new products and services emerging to adhere to data protection standards. Yet different conceptions of data protection exist across the Atlantic, with the EU putting a particular focus on protecting the fundamental right to privacy. Design/methodology/approach Using the distinction between positive and negative forms of market integration as a starting point (Scharpf, 1997), this paper examines the question of how the EU is projecting its own data protection regime to third states. The so-called California effect (Vogel, 1997) and the utilization of trade agreements in the EU’s foreign policy and external relations are well researched. With decreasing effectiveness and limited territorial reach of its enlargement policy, the EU found trade agreements to be particularly effective to set standards on a global level (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). The existence of the single market makes the Union not only an important locus of regulation but also a strong economic actor with the global ambition of digital assertiveness. In the past, establishing standards for the EU’s vast consumer market has proven effective in compelling non-European market participants to join. Findings As the globe’s largest consumer market, Europe aims to project its own data protection laws through the market place principle (lex loci solutionis), requiring any data processor to follow its laws whenever European customers’ data are processed. This paper argues that European data protection law creates a “California Effect”, whereby the EU exerts pressure on extra-territorial markets by unilateral standard setting. Originality/value With its GDPR, the EU may have defused the problem of European citizens’ data being stored and evaluated according to the US law. However, it has also set a precedent of extra-territorial applicability of its legislation – despite having previously criticized the USA for such practices. By now, international companies increasingly store data of European customers in Europe to prevent conflicts with EU law. With this decision, the EU will apply its own law on others’ sovereign territory. Conflicts created through the extra-territorial effects of national law may contradict the principle of due diligence obligations but are nevertheless not illegitimate. They may, however, have further unintended effects: Other major economies are likely to be less reluctant in the future about passing legal provisions with extra-territorial effect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document