Data Protection Rights Together With Administrative Proceedings

Steve Peers

What rights exercise asylum-seekers convey equally regards information protection law? This number was clarified inwards today’s CJEU judgment in YS as well as M as well as S, which could too convey broader relevance for whatever example which involves access to documents inwards the context of administrative procedures.

Both cases involved asylum-seekers inwards the Netherlands, who sought access to file notes concerning their case. However, they did non rely on the EU’s asylum procedures Directive, which states that asylum-seekers must endure given the reasons for negative decisions as well as are entitled to access reports close the interviews held amongst them, but does non brand holler of access to whatever other document. The second-phase procedures Directive, applicable to applications made subsequently xx July 2015, adds a right of access to country-of-origin information as well as goodness advice which was used inwards making a determination on the asylum-seeker’s case, but soundless does non extend to a right to the entire file.

So they invoked the data protection Directive instead. The commencement enquiry inwards this observe was whether the legal analysis inwards the file concerning their example was ‘personal data’ inside the pregnant of the Directive. According to the CJEU, it was not, for although that analysis ‘may incorporate personal data, it does non inwards itself works life such information inside the pregnant of’ that Directive. That analysis ‘is non information relating to the applicant for a residence permit, but’ rather ‘information close the assessment as well as application yesteryear the competent authorization of that constabulary to the applicant’s situation’, based on the personal information available to the authorities.

The Court farther opined that this was consistent amongst the utilization of the Directive, which was to ensure the right to privacy, including the cheque on the accuracy of the information as well as the correction of inaccurate data. H5N1 unlike approach would amount to ‘the right of access to administrative documents’, which was non the indicate of the Directive. It justified its analysis yesteryear analogy amongst the Bavarian Lager judgment, inwards which it had ruled that the Directive did non convey the utilization of opening upwardly the transparency of European Union decision-making.

The instant indicate was the extent of access to the personal information (as defined yesteryear the Court) which was beingness processed. On this point, the CJEU rejected the declaration that the entire file document had to endure made available, as well as instead stated that it was sufficient to plow over information subjects an intelligible summary of the personal information beingness processed.

Finally, the national courtroom had asked close the possible application of Article 41 of the Charter, which sets out the right to goodness administration. The CJEU distinguished its prior example law, as well as asserted that this Charter right applied exclusively to European Union bodies, non to national administrations. But the right to goodness direction could soundless endure invoked against national regime equally a general principle, equally distinct from a Charter right.

Comments

The Court’s analysis of the master copy information protection issues hither is non really convincing. There is aught inwards the text of either the information protection Directive or the asylum procedures Directive that would propose a distinction betwixt administrative documents which incorporate personal data, as well as other types of collection of personal data. Quite clearly asylum-seekers exercise convey an involvement inwards knowing how their personal information is beingness processed inwards observe of an analysis of their application, as well as of correcting that personal information if it is correct.

To fence that the information protection Directive does non plow over access to administrative documents is a straw homo argument. The enquiry is non whether it aims to plow over access to all administrative documents, but exclusively whether it gives access to those which incorporate personal data. The comparing amongst the Court’s Bavarian Lager judgment makes no feel either, for inwards that example information protection formed an limited exception to the European Union legislation on access to documents, as well as the 2 rights were inwards conflict.

The Court’s judgment on the instant indicate is to a greater extent than convincing, inwards lite of the wording of the information protection Directive, which exclusively requires an intelligible summary of the personal information beingness processed to endure made available.

Finally, the Court’s analysis of Article 41 of the Charter is a brave essay to clear upwardly the prior inconsistencies as well as confusion on this point, for example inwards its recent judgment on procedural rights equally regards subsidiary protection applications. Undeniably the Charter provision does exclusively apply to European Union bodies, non to Member States, but the Court yet guarantees that the right to goodness direction tin endure claimed against the latter yesteryear clarifying that the right to goodness direction is nonetheless a full general regulation of European Union law.

This is, apparently, the commencement fourth dimension that the Court has confirmed that around rights are non inwards the Charter, but are protected equally full general principles of European Union law. This raises of import questions equally to which other rights mightiness endure protected inwards that way, what the departure betwixt the parallel rights to goodness direction mightiness be, as well as whether the full general principles convey a unlike legal resultant than Charter rights. But inwards the specific context of asylum proceedings, as well as to a greater extent than mostly inwards many other areas of European Union law, it is useful that the Court confirmed that applicants tin soundless enforce (by a unlike means) the right to goodness direction against national authorities.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 8, chapter 9, chapter 26

Share this post