scholarly journals Right of Access under GDPR and Copyright

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-246
Author(s):  
Angela Sobolčiaková
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Main Question ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Access Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Data Subject

The paper discusses the right to obtain a copy of personal data based on the access right guaranteed in Articles 15 (3) and limited in 15 (4) of the GDPR. Main question is to what extent, the access right provided to data subject under the data protection rules is compatible with copyright. We argue that the subject matter of Article 15 (3) of the GDPR - copy of personal data – may infringe copyright protection of third parties but not a copyright protection attributed to the data controllers.Firstly, because the right of access and copyright may be in certain circumstances incompatible. Secondly, the data controllers are primarily responsible for balancing conflicting rights and neutral balancing exercise could only be applied by the Data Protection Authorities. Thirdly, the case law of the CJEU regarding this issue will need to be developed because the copy as a result of access right may be considered as a new element in data protection law.

23. Data protection: rights and obligations

2019 ◽  
pp. 595-619
Author(s):  
Andrew Murray
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
Access Right ◽  
Data Subject

This chapter examines the rights of data subjects under GDPR and the role of the state in supervising data controllers. It examines data subject rights, including the subject access right and the right to correct and manage personal data. It deals with the development of the so-called Right to be Forgotten and the Mario Costeja González case. It examines the current supervisory regime, including the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the enforcement rights of data subjects. Key cases, including Durant v The Financial Services Authority, Edem v IC & Financial Services Authority, Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing, and Ittihadieh v 5–11 Cheyne Gardens are discussed, and the chapter concludes by examining the enhanced enforcement rights awarded to the Information Commissioner’s Office by the General Data Protection Regulation in 2018.

Article 30 Records of processing activities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waltraut Kotschy
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Data Flows ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Data Subject ◽  
General Conditions

Article 13 (Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject); Article 14 (Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject); Article 15 (Right of access by the data subject); Article 24 (Responsibility of the controller); Article 32 (Security of processing); Article 35 (Data protection impact assessment); Article 37 (Designation of a data protection officer); Article 49 (Derogations for specific situations concerning transborder data flows); Article 83 (General conditions for imposing administrative fines)

The Right of Access under EU Data Protection Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 104-128
Author(s):  
Helena U. Vrabec
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
The Core ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Automated Decision Making ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Data Subject ◽  
Core Part

Chapter 5 focuses on Article 15 of the GDPR and explains the scope of the information that can be accessed under the right. The chapter then discusses the importance of the interface to submit data subject access requests. The core part of Chapter 5 is the analysis of the regulatory boundaries of the right of access and various avenues to limit the right, for instance, a conflict with the rights of another individual. Finally, the chapter illustrates how the right of access is applied in the data-driven economy by applying it to three different contexts: shared data, anonymised/pseudonymised data, and automated decision-making.

Data Portability as a Data Subject Right

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-188
Author(s):  
Helena U. Vrabec
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Data Portability ◽  
The Right ◽  
Data Subject

Chapter 7 analyses the right to data portability set out in Article 20 of the GDPR. It first provides an overview of several commercial and regulatory initiatives that preceded the GDPR version of the right to personal data portability. Next, it explores the language of Article 20 to demonstrate the effects of the narrow scope of the right. The chapter then shows how data portability interacts with other data subject rights, particularly with the right to access and the right to be forgotten, before it describes manifestations of data portability in legal areas outside of the data protection law. Finally, the chapter explores the specific objective of the right to data portability under the GDPR as an enabler of data subjects’ control.

scholarly journals La forja jurisprudencial del principio de transparencia

2011 ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Blanca Ballester Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Access ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ordre Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Access To Documents

Regulation 1049/2001 establishes and shapes the right of access to documents in the European Union. This right is limited by a series of colliding principles and rights, such as privacy of personal data, ‘ordre public’ or commercial interests. The European Court of Justice, through rulings by each one of its two Courts (the General Court and the European Court), has shaped and generally extended the scope of Regulation 1049/2001, increasing transparency in the institutions. However, there is no clear case-law trend as regards access to documents, since rulings often contradict each other and precedents are of relatively little value. Recent rulings, such as those given to the Borax and Bavarian Lager cases, seem to restrict public access to documents in the institutions by placing access to documents under other values such as privacy and data protection. This trend seems again to contradict what the Lisbon Treaty and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights have just introduced: a higher consideration of access to documents and a clear commitment with institutional transparency. This paper aims at giving a clear overview of the evolution and state of play of the right of public access to documents in the European legislation and case law. By analyzing the latest legal and jurisprudential developments, it can be concluded that law and case law do not seem to go hand in hand yet and seem to contradict each other. Immediate and further developments should be watched with a careful eye, as these will shape the post-Lisbon concept of access to documents. Consequently, essential principles such as transparency and data protection might undergo as well important changes.El Reglamento 1049/2001 consagra y configure el derecho de acceso público a documentos en la Unión Europea. Este derecho está limitado por ciertos bienes jurídicos en conflicto, como la privacidad de los datos personales, el orden público o los intereses comerciales. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, a través de las sentencias emanadas de sus dos instancias, ha pulido y en general extendido el campo de aplicación del Reglamento 1049/2001, aumentando la transparencia en las instituciones. Sin embargo, no hay una línea jurisprudencial clara al respecto, dado que las sentencias a menudo se contradicen entre sí y los precedentes jurisprudenciales parecen tener escaso valor en los asuntos posteriores. Algunas sentencias recientes, como las recaídas en los asuntos Borax y Bavarian Lager, parecen por el contrario restringir el derecho de acceso a documentos, dado que hacen prevalecer otros bienes jurídicos como la privacidad o la protección de datos. Esta última tendencia parece contradecir al Tratado de Lisboa y a la Carta Europea de Derechos Fundamentales, puesto que éstos han introducido una mayor consideración al derecho de acceso a documentos con el fin de aumentar la transparencia institucional. Este artículo busca procurar una panorámica general de la evolución y el estado actual del derecho de acceso público a los documentos tanto en la legislación como en la jurisprudencia europeas. Del análisis tanto de las novedades legislativas y jurisprudenciales al respecto se deduce que ambas no parecen ir a la par, sino que llegan incluso a contradecirse. El desarrollo futuro tanto de la ley como de la jurisprudencia deberán ser objeto de estudio detallado, dado que serán determinantes en la configuración del derecho de acceso a documentos tras el Tratado de Lisboa. Como consecuencia de esto, puede que ciertos principios también fundamentales, como la transparencia o la protección de datos, sufran importantes cambios en un futuro inmediato.

Summary and Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 471-478
Author(s):  
Jef Ausloos
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Power Asymmetries ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Right ◽  
Data Subject

The last chapter of this book summarises the main points of all individual chapters. As such, it tries to frame a more comprehensive answer to the central question throughout the book: i.e. does the right to erasure meaningfully contribute to safeguarding the fundamental right to data protection in the face of online power asymmetries? In traditional lawyer-fashion, the answer is 'yes... but', with the 'but' referring to several potential hurdles that might obstruct an effective exercise of the right to erasure. Importantly, data subject rights can be powerful tools not just to safeguard the fundamental right to data protection, but many other Charter provisions as well. The chapter concludes that the right to data protection not only implies the freedom to proactively control one's personal data, but also safeguards that freedom from being effectively usurped (e.g. by commercial, technological or bureaucratic forces). The GDPR contributes to this aim both by concrete empowerment tools, as well as by turning the processing of personal data into a liability.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

The protection of genetic information

2010 ◽  
pp. 91-113
Author(s):  
Juri Monducci
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Information ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Genetic Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Genetic Determinism ◽  
Genetic Identity ◽  
Statutory Protection ◽  
Right Not To Know ◽  
Genetic Makeup ◽  
The Right

The law pertaining to personal data has developed in Italy over a thirty-year span that took us from recognition of such data in the case law, in 1975, to its statutory protection, in 2003. This evolution would subsequently come to the point of specifically regulating the processing of genetic data as data revealing an individual's genetic makeup, thereby also revealing the biological future of individuals and their offspring: this information describes an individual at a core level where the deepest, most unchangeable traits are found and can therefore nurture what is nowadays referred to as genetic determinism, which reduces the person to a complex of genetic data and so ignores the whole layer of characteristics that make each of us unique. There is, then, a discriminatory risk inherent in the processing of genetic data, and equally clear are the psychological implications of such processing, so much so that the need has arisen to have rules in place aimed at regulating the biotechnologies and genetics in particular. These rules have given birth to the so-called fourthgeneration rights, inclusive of the right to ones genetic identity and the right not to know ones genetics (although this is something that had been discussed earlier, too), and it is to a discussion of these rights that this essay is devoted.

El derecho a ser informado como elemento esencial del derecho a la protección de datos. Una visión crítica de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional y de su cambio de doctrina en la STC 39/2016

2016 ◽  
pp. 191-216
Author(s):  
Miguel Ángel CABELLOS ESPIÉRREZ
Keyword(s):  
Video Surveillance ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Control Technology ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Lan eremuan bideozaintzaren erabilerak ondorio garrantzitsuak dakartza funtsezko eskubideei dagokienez, esate baterako intimitateari eta datu pertsonalen babesari dagokienez. Hala eta guztiz ere, oraindik ez daukagu araudi zehatz eta espezifikorik kontrol-teknika hori lan eremuan erabiltzeari buruz. Horrek behartuta, errealitate horri araudi-esparru anitz eta generikoa aplikatzeko modua auzitegiek zehaztu behar dute, kontuan hartuta, gainera, Espainiako Konstituzioaren 18.4 artikulua alde horretatik lausoa dela. Konstituzio Auzitegiak, datuen babeserako funtsezko eskubidea aztertzean, datuen titularraren adostasuna eta titular horri eman beharreko informazioa eskubide horretan berebizikoak zirela ezarri zuen; hortik ondorioztatzen da titularraren adostasuna eta hari emandako informazioa mugatuz gero behar bezala justifikatu beharko dela. Hala ere, Konstituzio Auzitegiak, duela gutxiko jurisprudentzian, bere doktrina aldatu du. Aldaketa horrek, lan eremuan, argi eta garbi langileak informazioa jasotzeko duen eskubidea debaluatzea dakar, bere datuetatik zein lortzen ari diren jakiteari dagokionez. RESUMEN: La utilización de la videovigilancia en el ámbito laboral posee importantes implicaciones en relación con derechos fundamentales como los relativos a la intimidad y a la protección de datos personales. Pese a ello, carecemos aún de una normativa detallada y específica en relación con el uso de dicha técnica de control en el ámbito laboral, lo que obliga a que sean los tribunales los que vayan concretando la aplicación de un marco normativo plural y genérico a esa realidad, dada además la vaguedad del art. 18.4 CE. El TC, al analizar el derecho fundamental a la protección de datos, había establecido el carácter central en él del consentimiento del titular de los datos y de la información que debe dársele a éste, de donde se sigue que cualquier limitación del papel de ambos deberá estar debidamente justificada. Sin embargo, en su más reciente jurisprudencia el TC ha realizado un cambio de doctrina que supone, en el ámbito laboral, una clara devaluación del derecho a la información por parte del trabajador en relación con qué datos suyos se están obteniendo. ABSTRACT : T he use of video surveillance systems within the work sphere has major implications for fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection. Nonetheless, we still lack of a detailed and specific regulation regarding the use of that control technology within the work sphere, which obliges courts to define the application of a plural and generic normative framework to that issue, given the vagueness of art. 18.4 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, when analyzing the fundamental right to data protection, had settled the centralityof the consent of the data rightholder and of the information to be provided to the latter, and from this it followed that any restriction on the role of both rights should be duly justified. However, in its most recent case law the Constitutional Court has changed its doctrine which means, within the work sphere, a clear devaluation of the right of information by the employee regarding the obtained data of him/her.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document