Feed aggregator

This Thursday, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona presented his Opinion in the case CNP, C-913/19. In this case, a Polish court asks the Court of Justice to interpret the special jurisdictional rules in matters relating to insurance contained in Section 3 of Chapter II of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in conjunction with Article 7(2) and (5) of that Regulation.

At the request of the Court, the Opinion focuses on the interpretation of the notion of “branch, agency or other establishment” within the meaning of Article 7(5) of the Regulation. However, as it results from point 3 of the Opinion, the future judgment of the Court will supplement its case-law pertaining to the aforementioned Section 3, complementing in particular the judgment in Hofsoe.

Context of the request for a preliminary ruling

In the judgment in Hofsoe, the Court of Justice answered the question of a Polish referring court by stating, in essence, that Articles 11 and 13(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation cannot be relied on by a natural person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers and who relies on a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the victim of a road accident, to bring before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident.

The judgment in Hofsoe clarified the issue of great relevance (not only) for Polish legal practice and scholars. In Poland, at least since 2011, in the wake of the Supreme Court case-law, the number of disputes pertaining to the recovery of an amount corresponding to the rental payment for a replacement vehicle from the insurer covering the civil liability of the person responsible for a road accident has been increasing. This case-law clarified, in essence, that the insurance coverage provided under a compulsory motor insurance policy covers purposeful and economically justified expenses pertaining to the rental of a replacement vehicle.

The market reacted. In practice, the owner of a damaged vehicle who rented a replacement vehicle for the duration of the vehicle repair period could quite commonly, instead of making the rental payment, assign a claim against the insurer of the person responsible for the accident to a professional (automobile repair workshop, vehicle rental company or professional whose activity consists in recovering claims for damages from insurers etc.). The professional would claim an amount corresponding to the rental payment from the insurer and the owner could use the replacement vehicle without having to make any payment.

In the European Single Insurance Market it was only a question of time before the national courts had to settle similar disputes in cross-border context. In fact, the request for a preliminary ruling in the case Hofsoe originated from one of such disputes. Here, the preliminary question resulted from the fact the Section 3 (“Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance”) aims to guarantee more protection to the weaker party (policyholder, insured, beneficiary and –  where a direct action is permitted – injured party) than the general rules of jurisdiction provide for. It was, thus, necessary to establish whether an assignee being a professional in the insurance sector can be considered as a weaker party.

Unsurprisingly, the case CNP, C-913/19 also derives from proceedings before a Polish court, where the applicant relies on a contract for the assignment to bring an action against the insurer of the person responsible for a road accident.

Facts in the main proceedings

A vehicle owned by an individual is damaged in a road accident provoked by another person insured against civil liability in respect of the use of motors vehicles under a contract concluded with an insurer established in Denmark. As we learn from point 17 of the Opinion, the road accident occurs in Poland.

For the duration of the vehicle repair period, its owner concludes a contract with an automobile repair workshop under which a replacement vehicle is rented in return for payment. Instead of making the rental payment, the owner assigns to the automobile repair workshop the future claim against the aforementioned insurer.

Subsequently, the automobile repair workshop assigns that claim to CNP, a liability limited company established in Poland.

CNP sends a request for payment of the rental amount to a limited liability company (“Polins”) established in Zychlin, Poland, which represents the interests of the Danish insurer as a foreign insurance undertaking in Poland. The adjustment of the insurance claims is supposed to be dealt with by another Polish limited liability company (“Crawford Polska”), acting on behalf of the insurer. Crawford Polska informs CNP that an action against the Danish insurer can be brought “either pursuant to provisions on general jurisdiction or before a court competent for the place of residence or seat of the policyholder, insured party, beneficiary or another person entitled under the insurance contract”.

Failing to obtain full payment of the rental amount, CNP brings an action against the Danish insurer before a Polish court. It argues that this court has jurisdiction to hear the case because, according to the information made public by the insurer, its main representative in Poland (Polins) has its seat in Zychlin.

The insurer argues that the claim should be rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Polish court. This court decides to refer three question for a preliminary ruling.

Considerations of the referring court on the preliminary questions Distinguishing the present case from the case Hofsoe

The referring court indicates that some factual elements distinguish its request for a preliminary ruling from that previously referred in the case Hofsoe. It notes that, in the present case, the defendant engages in insurance activity in Poland, while the case Hofsoe concerned a German insurance undertaking which was liable for the damage caused by a German national, and the road traffic incident in question occurred in Germany. It does not explicitly state how these differences should affect the interpretation of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Regardless, in the case Hofsoe, the owner of the damaged vehicle seemingly assigned the claim against the insurer directly to the applicant in the main proceedings, who the Court characterised as “professional in the insurance sector” (see points 42 and 43 of the judgment in Hofsoe). In the present case, the claim was first assigned to the repair workshop and then by this repair workshop to CNP. Against this background, it stems from the request for a preliminary ruling that the applicant argues that the refusal to recognise jurisdiction of the Polish courts will result in automobile repair workshops refusing to carry out repairs or in customers having to cover the costs themselves. It seems that this argument is based on the assumption that “repair” costs cover also the expenses pertaining to the rental of a replacement vehicle and that the assignment of insurance-related claims offers additional protection to the persons considered as weaker parties in matters relating to insurance. However, in the wording of the preliminary questions, this twofold assignment is not explicitly mentioned – the first question concerns “a [professional] having acquired [a claim] from an injured party”.

In its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court also points out that while Denmark did not take part in the adoption of the Brussels I bis Regulation, it notified its decision to apply the content of the Regulation.

Interplay between first and second question

As mentioned above, in his Opinion, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona addresses the second preliminary question pertaining to the interpretation of Article 7(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The referring court considers that the second question should be analysed only if the first question is answered in the affirmative.

By its first question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether – taking into account Articles 10 and 13(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation – the applicant in the main proceedings is not barred from relying on Article 7(2) and Article 7(5) of the Regulation.

It seems that, by this question, the referring court seeks to establish whether an action can, as to its substance, fall within the scope of the Section 3 (“matters relating to insurance”), yet the applicant bringing that action and being a professional could be barred from relying on the rules on jurisdiction provided for in Articles 10 and 13(2) of that Section (as he is not a “weaker party”) and also from relying on the rules on jurisdiction of the Section 2 (because an action in matters relating to insurance is covered exclusively by the Section 3).

In fact, while the referring court seems not to entertain that interpretation, it notes that wording of Article 10 of the Brussels I bis Regulation could support it (“in matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by the Section 3, without prejudice to Article 6 and aforementioned Article 7(5)”). This reference could be read in the light of the terms of Article 13(2), according to which Article 10 shall apply to actions brought (only) by the “injured party” directly against the insurer.

The referring court notes that its doubts are also inspired by Article 12 of the Regulation (“In respect of liability insurance or insurance of immovable property, the insurer may in addition be sued in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred”). This court wonders whether this provision would not be superfluous if Section 2 and its Article 7(2) were applied in parallel with it.

Opinion of AG

By the second question, addressed by AG at the request of the Court, the referring court is asking whether a company operating in a Member State which adjusts losses under compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles pursuant to a contract with an insurer established in another Member State is this insurer’s “branch, agency or other establishment” within the meaning of Article 7(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

At the outset is it worth observing that, regardless of the applicant’s position, the referring court seems to consider that Crawford Polska (and not Polins) is the relevant entity for the purposes of Article 7(5) of the Regulation. At points 53 – 58 of his Opinion, AG clarifies the issue and proceeds on that premise.

Next, at points 59 – 68, AG analyses whether the criteria established by the Court in its case-law and required to consider that the relevant entity is a “branch, agency or other establishment” are met.

Finally, at points 69 – 112, AG delves into the relation between Article 7(5) of the Regulation, on the one hand, and the Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), on the other hand.

Ultimately, at point 113, AG proposes to answer the second question by considering:

“Article 7(5) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial company established in a Member State which operates under a contract with an insurance undertaking established in another Member State may be classified as a ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ of that undertaking if, cumulatively:

it operates in a Member State by providing compensation for material damage on the basis of insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles the risks connected with which are covered by the insurance undertaking;

it has the appearance of an extension of the insurance undertaking; and

it has a management body and material facilities such as to enable it to transact business with third parties, so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the insurance undertaking, do not have to deal directly with that undertaking.”

Instead of presenting an extensive synthesis of the Opinion, it is best to recommend giving it an attentive lecture. As it stems from 36 of the Opinion, it provides guidance not only in the insurance-related contexts, but also in other instances where the application of Article 7(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation comes into question.

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑913/19 (CNP spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v Gefion Insurance A/S), which is about Article 7.5 Brussels I bis.

The parties: “CNP [] is a limited liability company established in Poland.

[Gefion] is an insurance undertaking established in Denmark. [Crawford Polska] established in Poland, is the undertaking authorised by Gefion to ‘settle claims in full’, as well as to ‘represent Gefion in all proceedings … before the courts and other public authorities’. [Polins], a second undertaking located in Żychlin (Poland), also represents Gefion in Poland.

The facts: “On 28 February 2018 a road traffic accident occurred in Poland, involving a collision between the vehicle belonging to the injured party and the vehicle belonging to the party responsible for the accident. At that time, the latter had taken out with Gefion a contract of insurance against the civil liability of the owner of the motor vehicle. [] while the car was being repaired, the injured party concluded with the repair workshop a contract for the rental of a replacement vehicle. [] By way of payment for the rental service, that person assigned his claim against Gefion to the repair workshop. At the end of the rental, the workshop issued a VAT invoice for the service. [] CNP acquired from the repair workshop, by way of a contract for the assignment of claims, the right to pursue against Gefion the claim for reimbursement of the costs of renting the replacement vehicle. [] CNP requested Gefion to pay the amount on the invoice. It sent the request to Polins’ address.

[] Gefion instructed Crawford Polska to assume responsibility for payment of the claim. Acting for and on behalf of Gefion, Crawford Polska validated the invoice in part and accepted part of the amount claimed. []     In the same document relating to the aforementioned matters, Crawford Polska referred to the possibility of making a claim against it as the entity authorised by the insurance undertaking. It also included information on the possibility of claiming against Gefion, either under the general provisions on jurisdiction or before the court with jurisdiction for the place where the policyholder, the insured person, the beneficiary or any other person entitled under the insurance contract is resident or established”.

The proceedings: “On 20 August 2018, CNP brought an action against Gefion before the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (District Court, Białystok, Poland). With respect to the international jurisdiction [of that court], [CNP] cited the information published by Gefion to the effect that its principal representative in Poland is Polins. It asked for service of documents intended for Gefion to be effected at Polins’ address.

25.      Gefion, as defendant, opposed the grant of the application on the ground that the Polish court lacked jurisdiction. It cited, as the provision applicable to jurisdiction, Article 5(1) of the Regulation. After arguing that CNP is a business entity engaged in the purchase of claims arising from insurance contracts, it submitted that CNP is not a policyholder, insured person or beneficiary and that, consequently, it does not have the capacity to bring an action before the court of a Member State other than that where the insured person is established.

26.      CNP submitted in reply that the defendant is on the list of insurance undertakings from EU/EFTA Member States notified in Poland and supervised by the Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (Financial Supervision Committee, Poland); that it sells policies in Polish territory; and that it is unacceptable that someone subrogated to the injured party’s claim should not be able to seek reimbursement of the repair costs in question before the court for the place where the harmful event and the repair took place”.

The opinion: “Article 7(5) of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial company established in a Member State which operates under a contract with an insurance undertaking established in another Member State may be classified as a ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ of that undertaking if, cumulatively:

–        it operates in a Member State by providing compensation for material damage on the basis of insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles the risks connected with which are covered by the insurance undertaking;

–        it has the appearance of an extension of the insurance undertaking; and

–        it has a management body and material facilities such as to enable it to transact business with third parties, so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the insurance undertaking, do not have to deal directly with that undertaking”

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=236431&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=22755183

Le droit de l’Union européenne laisse aux États membres la possibilité d’imposer l’étourdissement préalable des animaux dans le cadre de l’abattage rituel. Le cas échéant, pareille mesure fondée sur la promotion du bien-être animal n’est pas contraire aux droits garantis par la Charte des droits fondamentaux.

en lire plus

L’article 121-6 du code de la route ne porte pas atteinte au droit à ne pas s’auto-incriminer de sorte qu’il ne viole pas l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (Conv. EDH).

en lire plus

Ordonnances sur requête et référé

Procédures civiles d'exécution

Procédure civile

This report has been prepared by Priyanka Jain, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg.

 

Introduction:

 

On 9-11 December 2020, ERA – the Academy of European Law – organized an online seminar on “Privacy and Data Protection: Recent ECtHR & CJEU Case Law”.  The core of the seminar was to provide an update on the case law developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) with relevance for privacy and data protection law since 2019. The key issues discussed were the distinction between the right to privacy and data protection in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and CJEU, the impact of the jurisprudence on international data transfers, notions of ‘essence of fundamental rights’ ‘personal data processing’, ‘valid consent’ and so on.

 

 

Day 1: Personal Data Protection and right to privacy

 

Gloria González Fuster (Research Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels) presented on the essence of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection in the existing legal framework with a specific focus on the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 8 of ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Art. 7, Art. 8)

 

Article 8 of the Convention (ECHR) guarantees the right to respect private and family life. In contrast, Art 52(1) EU Charter recognizes the respect for the essence of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Both are similar, but not identical. This can be validated from the following points:

• As per Art 8 (2) ECHR – there shall be no interference with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law, whereas Art 52 (1) states that any limitation to the exercise of right and freedoms recognized by the Charter must be provided for by law.
• The Art 8 (2) ECHR stresses the necessity in a democratic society to exercise such an interference, whereas Art 52(1) of the EU Charter is subject to the principle of proportionality.
• Respect for the essence of rights and freedoms is mentioned in Art 52 (1) but not mentioned in Art 8 (2).
• Also, Art 8 (2) states that the interference to the right must be only allowed in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. At the same time, Article 52 (1) states that any limitations to rights must meet objectives of general interest recognized by the Union or the need to protect others’ rights and freedoms.

 

In the Joined Cases C?293/12 and C?594/12, Digital Rights Ireland; the Court addressed the interferences to the rights guaranteed under Articles 7 and 8 caused by the Data Retention Directive. An assessment was carried out as to whether the interferences to the Charter rights were justified as per Article 52(1) of the Charter. In order to be justified, three conditions under Article 52(1) must be fulfilled. The interference must be provided for by law, and there must be respect for the essence of the rights, and it must be subject to the principle of proportionality. Certain limitations to the exercise of such interference/ infringement must be genuinely necessary to meet objectives of general interest. The Directive does not permit the acquisition of data and requires the Member States to ensure that ‘appropriate technical and organizational measures are adopted against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss or alteration of data’ and thus, respects the essence of the right to privacy and data protection. The Directive also satisfied the objective of general interest as the main aim of the Directive was to fight against serious crime, and it was also proportional to its aim of need for data retention to fight against serious crimes. However, even though the Directive satisfied these three criteria, it did not set out clear safeguards for protecting the retained data, and therefore it was held to be invalid.

 

It is pertinent to note here that the ECHR does not contain any express requirement to protect the ‘essence’ of fundamental rights, whereas the Charter does. However, with regard to Art 8 of the ECHR, it aims to prohibit interference or destruction of any rights or freedoms with respect for private and family life. This can be possibly interpreted so as to protect the essence of the fundamental right of private and family life. This is because a prohibition of the destruction of any right would mean affecting the core of the right or compromising the essence of the right.

 

Gloria, also examined Article 7 of the Charter, which guarantees a right to respect for private and family life, home and communications, and Article 8, which not only distinguishes data protection from privacy but also lays down some specific guarantees in paragraphs 2 and 3, namely that personal data must be processed fairly for specified purposes. She analyzed these Charter provisions concerning the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). GDPR creates three-fold provisions by imposing obligations on the data controllers, providing rights to data subjects, and creating provision for supervision by data protection authorities.

 

She also addressed the balance between the right to privacy and the processing of personal data of an individual on one hand and the right to information of the public on the other. Concerning this, she highlighted the interesting decision in C-131/12, Google Spain, wherein it was stated that an interference with a right guaranteed under Article 7 and 8 of the Charter could be justified depending on the nature and sensitivity of the information at issue and with regard to the potential interest of the internet users in having access to that information. A fair balance must be sought between the two rights. This may also depend on the role played by the data subject in public.

It was also discussed in the judgments C-507/17, Google v CNIL; and Case C-136/17 that a data subject should have a “right to be forgotten” where the retention of such data infringes the Directive 95/46 and the GDPR. However, the further retention of the personal data shall only be lawful where it is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information. The ruling was on the geographical reach of a right to be forgotten. It was held that it is not applicable beyond the EU, meaning that Google or other search engine operators are not under an obligation to apply the ‘right to be forgotten’ globally.

In the next half of the day, Roland Klages, Legal Secretary, Chambers of First Advocate General Szpunar, Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, presented on the topic: “The concept of consent to the processing of personal data”. He started with a brief introduction of GDPR and stated that there is no judgment on GDPR alone as it has been introduced and implemented recently, but there are judgments based on the interpretation of Directive 95/46 and the GDPR simultaneously.  He commented on the composition of the ECJ, which sits in the panel of 3,5, 15 (Grand Chamber), or 27 (Plenum) judges. The Grand Chamber comprises a President, vice-president, 3 presidents of a 5th chamber, rapporteur, another 9 judges, appointed based on re-established lists (see Article 27 ECJ RP).

 

He discussed the following cases in detail:

 

C – 673/17 (Planet49): Article 6(1) (a) GDPR states that the processing of data is lawful only if the data subject has given consent to the processing of personal data for one or more specific purposes. “Consent” of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.[1] This clearly indicates that consent is valid only if it comes from the active behavior of the user as it indicates the wishes of the data subjects. A consent given in the form of a pre-selected checkbox on a website does not amount to active behavior. It also does not fulfill the requirement of unambiguity. Another important aspect of the ruling was that it does not matter if the information stored or retrieved consists of personal data or not. Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58/ EC (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)protects the user from interference with their private sphere, regardless of whether or not that interference involves personal or other data. Hence, in this case, the storage of cookies at issue amounts to the processing of personal data. Further, it is also important that the user is able to determine the consequence of the consent given and is well informed. However, in this case, the question of whether consent is deemed to be freely given if it is agreed to sell data as consideration for participation in a lottery is left unanswered.

 

Similarly, in case C -61/19 (Orange Romania), it was held that a data subject must, by active behavior, give his or her consent to the processing of his or her personal data, and it is upto the data controller, i.e., Orange România to prove this. The case concerns contracts containing a clause stating that the data subject has been informed about the collection and storage of a copy of his or her identification document with the identification function and has consented thereto. He also discussed other cases such as case C-496/17, Deutsche Post, and C- 507/17, Google (discussed earlier), demonstrating that consent is a central concept to GDPR.

 

 

Day 2: “Retention of personal data for law enforcement purposes.”

 

On the next day, Kirill Belogubets, Magister Juris (Oxford University), case lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), started with a presentation on the topic:

 

“Retention of personal data for combating crime.”

 

Kirill Belogubets discussed the case of PN v. Germany. No. 74440/17 regarding the processing of personal identification of data in the context of criminal proceedings. In this case, a German citizen was suspected of buying a stolen bicycle. Authorities collected an extensive amount of data such as photographs, fingerprints, palm prints, and suspect descriptions. It must be noted here that with regard to the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR, the interference must be justified and fulfill the test of proportionality, legitimacy, and necessity. The authorities expounded on the likelihood that the offender may offend again. Therefore, in the interest of national security, public security, and prevention of disorder and criminal offenses, it is essential to collect and store data to enable tracing of future offenses and protect the rights of future potential victims. Thus, the collection and storage of data in the present case struck a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and therefore fell within the respondent State’s margin of appreciation.

 

With respect to margin of appreciation, the case of Gaughran v. The United Kingdom, no. 45245/15was also discussed. This case pertains to the period of retention of DNA profiles, fingerprints, and photographs for use in pending proceedings. The Court considered storing important data such as DNA samples only of those convicted of recordable offences, namely an offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment. Having said that, there was a need for the State to ensure that certain safeguards were present and effective, especially in the nature of judicial review for the convicted person whose biometric data and photographs were retained indefinitely.

 

However, it has been highlighted that the legal framework on the retention of DNA material was not very precise. It does not specifically relate to data regarding DNA profiles and there is no specific time limit for the retention of DNA data. Similarly, the applicant has no avenue to seek deletion because of the absence of continued necessity, age, personality, or time elapsed. This has been laid down in the case of Trajkovski and Chipovski v. North Macedonia, nos. 53205/13 and 63320/13.

 

Mass Collection and Retention of Communications data

In the next half, Anna Buchta, Head of Unit “Policy & Consultation”, European Data Protection Supervisor, Brussels brought the discussion on Article 7 and 8 of the Charter and Article 8 of the Convention along with the concept of ‘essence’ of fundamental rights, back to the table. With regard to this discussion, she described the case C-362/14 Maximilian Schrems v DPC, which highlights that ‘any legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalized basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter.’ In this context, EU member states must recognize the confidentiality of communication as a distinct legal right. In this case, it was the first time where a Directive was invalidated due to non-confirmation with the ECHR. It was laid down that the safe harbor principles issued under the Commission Decision 2000/520, pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC  does not comply with its Article 25(6), which ensures a level of protection of fundamental rights essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU legal order. The Decision 2000/520 does not state that the United States, infact, ‘ensures’ an adequate level of protection by reason of its domestic law or its international commitments.

 

Traffic and Location data

She also commented on the indefinite retention of data, which might lead to a feeling of constant surveillance leading to interference with freedom of expression in light of CJEU cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 Sverige and Watson. In these cases, the Court agreed that under Article 15(1) of the Directive 2002/58 / EC, data retention could be justified to combat serious crime, national security, protecting the constitutional, social, economic, or political situation of the country and preventing terrorism. However, this must only be done if it is limited to what is strictly necessary, regarding categories of data, means of communication affected, persons concerned, and retention period. Traffic data relating to subscribers and users processed and stored by the provider of a public communications network or publicly available electronic communications service must be erased or made anonymous when it is no longer needed for the transmission of a communication without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of this Article 6 and Article 15(1) of the Directive. This was reiterated in C-623/17 Privacy International. It must be noted here that these data can be retained only if there is evidence that these data constitute an identifiable link, at least an indirect one, to criminal activities. Data with regard to the geographical location again requires objective factors. It must be retained if there exists a risk of criminal activities in such areas. These locations may correspond to places that are vulnerable to the commission of serious offenses, for instance, areas that receive a large number of people, such as airports, train stations, toll-booth areas, etc.

 

The Court differentiated between generalized and targeted retention of data. Real-time collection and indeterminate storage of electronic communications surveillance involving traffic and location data of specific individuals constitute targeted retention. In this context, the case of C?511/18, C?512/18 and C?520/18, La Quadrature du Net and Others were also relied upon, with a focus on the following findings:

Targeted real-time collection of traffic and location data by electronic communication providers that concerns exclusively one or more persons constitutes a serious interference that is allowed where:

• Real-time collection of traffic and location data is limited to persons in respect of whom there is a valid reason to suspect that they are directly or indirectly involved in terrorist activities. With regard to persons falling outside of that category, they may only be the subject of non-real-time access.
• A court or an administrative authority must pass an order after prior review, allowing such real-time collection. This must be authorized only within the limits of what is strictly necessary. In cases of duly justified urgency, the review must take place within a short time.
• A decision authorizing the real-time collection of traffic and location data must be based on objective criteria provided for in the national legislation, which must clearly define the circumstances and conditions under which such collection may be authorized.
• The competent national authorities undertaking real-time collection of traffic and location data must notify the persons concerned, in accordance with the applicable national procedures.

 

 

Last but not least, the EU Commission as well as the CJEU have started looking at the national laws of data retention and specifically inclined to define national security in manner so as to increase their own role in the area. However, data retention schemes are divergent across the Member States. It is essential to create clearer and more precise rules at the European level to enable the Courts to develop the best ways to strike a balance between the interactions of privacy rights with the need to tackle serious crime. The different legal rules in the area of data retention restricted cooperation between competent authorities in cross-border cases and affected law enforcement efforts. For instance, some Member States have specified retention periods, whereas some do not, a fact from which conflict-of-laws problems may arise. While some Member States for example Luxembourg precisely define ‘access to data’, there are Member States, which do not. This was pointed out by the EU Council in the conclusion of the data retention reflection process in May 2019, wherein it was emphasized that there is a need for a harmonised framework for data retention at EU level to remedy the fragmentation of national data retention practices.

 

Day 3: Data Protection in the Global Data Economy

 

The discussion of the third day started with a presentation by Professor Herwig Hofmann, Professor of European and Transnational Public Law, the University of Luxembourg on the well-known Schremscases namely, C-362/14, Schrems I; C-498/16, Schrems vs Facebook; and C-311/18, Schrems II;which involves transatlantic data transfer and violation of Article 7 and 8 of the Charter. In the clash between the right to privacy of the EU and surveillance of the US, the CJEU was convinced that any privacy agreements could not keep the personal data of EU citizens safe from surveillance in the US, so long as it is processed in the US under the country’s current laws. The guidelines in the US for mass surveillance did not fit in the EU. Therefore, privacy shield could not be maintained.

He also highlighted that international trade in today’s times involves the operation of standard contractual terms created to transfer data from one point to another. Every company uses a cloud service for the storage of data, which amounts to its processing. It is inevitable to ensure transparency from cloud services. The companies using cloud services must require transparency from cloud services and confirm how the cloud service will use the data, where would the data be stored or transferred.

 

In the last panel of the seminar Jörg Wimmers, Partner at TaylorWessing, Hamburg, spoke about the balance between Data protection and copyright.

The case discussed in detail was C-264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, which was about the prosecution of the user who unlawfully uploaded a film on YouTube, i.e., without the copyright holder’s permission. In this regard, it was held that the operator of the website is bound only to provide information about the postal address of the infringer and not the IP address, email addresses, and telephone numbers. The usual meaning of the term ‘address’ under the Directive 2004/48 (Directive on the enforcement of Intellectual Property rights) refers only to the postal address, i.e., the place of a given person’s permanent address or habitual residence. In this context, he also commented on the extent of the right to information guaranteed under Article 8 of the said Directive 2004/48. This was done by highlighting various cases, namely, C-580/13, Coty and C-516/17, Spiegel Online, noting that Article 8 does not refer to that user’s email address and phone number, or to the IP address used for uploading those files or that used when the user last accessed his account. However, Article 8 seeks to reconcile the right to information of the rightholder/ intellectual property holder and the user’s right to privacy.

 

Conclusion:

 

To conclude, the online seminar was a total package with regard to providing a compilation of recent cases of the ECtHR and CJEU on data protection and the right to privacy. A plethora of subjects, such as the balance between data protection and intellectual property rights, privacy and data retention, and respect for the essence of fundamental rights to privacy, were discussed in detail. The data retention provision established by the new Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications may be an exception to the general rule of data protection, but in the current world of Internet Service providers and telecommunication companies, it may not be easy to ensure that these companies store all data of their subscribers. Also, it is important to ensure that data retained for the purpose of crime prevention does not fall into the hands of cybercriminals, thereby making their jobs easier.

 

[1] Article 4 No.11 GDPR

Commission / Italie (Contribution à l’achat de carburants)
Fiscalité
La remise sur le prix des carburants pour les résidents de la Regione autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia n’entraîne pas, en soi, une violation de la directive sur la taxation de l’énergie

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Retour d’un mineur non accompagné)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice ASIL
Avant de prendre une décision de retour à l’égard d’un mineur non accompagné, un État membre doit vérifier qu’un accueil adéquat est disponible pour le mineur dans l’État de retour

Okrazhna prokuratura - Haskovo et Apelativna prokuratura - Plovdiv
DFON
Une réglementation nationale qui permet la confiscation d’un instrument utilisé pour commettre une infraction de contrebande qualifiée mais appartenant à un tiers de bonne foi est contraire au droit de l’Union

Geert van Calster has just published the third edition of the book titled “European Private International Law: Commercial Litigation in the EU” with Hart.

The blurb reads as follows:

This classic textbook provides a thorough overview of European private international law. It is essential reading for private international law students who need to study the European perspective in order to fully get to grips the subject.
Opening with foundational questions, it clearly explains the subject’s central tenets: the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II Regulations (jurisdiction, applicable law for contracts and tort). Additional chapters explore the Succession Regulation, private international law and insolvency, freedom of establishment, and the impact of PIL on corporate social responsibility. The new edition includes a new chapter on the Hague instruments and an opening discussion on the impact of Brexit.
Drawing on the author’s rich experience, the new edition retains the book’s hallmarks of insight and clarity of expression ensuring it maintains its position as the leading textbook in the field.

 

The purpose of the book is to serve as an introductory text for students interested in EU Private International Law. The book can also be appreciated by non-EU students interested in EU Private International Law since it serves as an introductory text. It contains seven core chapters including the introduction. The full table of contents and introduction are provided free to readers and can be accessed respectively here and here

From what I have read so far in the introduction, this book is highly recommended. It brings the subject of EU Private International Law to the doorstep of the uninitiated and refreshes the knowledge of any expert on Private International Law (“PIL”). Though the core foundation of the book is on EU PIL, it contains some comparisons to other systems of PIL especially in the common law, in order to illustrate. Importantly, the introduction ends with the implications of Brexit for EU PIL and some interesting speculations.

More information on the book can be found here

Noëmie Reichling (PhD, Avocat à la Cour, France) has just published a monograph on Fundamental Principles of Civil Litigation in the European Judicial Area, based on her doctoral thesis: Les principes directeur du procès civil dans l’espace judiciaire européen. Etude à partir du procès civil transfrontalier, PUAM, 2020.

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

Since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on the 1st of May 1999 and the “communitarisation” of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the European Union has adopted many legal instruments relating to cross-border litigation, to the extent that one can now refer to a distinct “European International Private Law”, the governing principles of which have yet to be defined. By comparison, the French Code of Civil Procedure includes an entire chapter devoted to the governing principles applicable to civil trials. Based on a study of the European civil justice area, four governing principles can be identified: the adversarial principle, the principle of the judge’s active role, the principle of urgency and the principle of cross-border dialogue. In prospective terms, it follows that the possibility of these four principles’ being enacted in EU law is a matter worthy of examination. Several obstacles can be identified, none of which appears to be insuperable. Having been recognised as a possibility, such a consecration also seems desirable on the grounds of its several demonstrable advantages. The legal basis and vehicle of the above-mentioned four principles’ legal enshrinement remain to be determined. In this regard, article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pertaining to judicial cooperation in civil matters, could serve as a legal basis. In terms of implementation, this study also argues in favour of regulations over directives.

More details available here.

Extradition

Statuts collectifs du travail