Does The Uk’S Novel Information Memory Mouth Violate The Eu Charter Of Cardinal Rights?

Steve Peers

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from Apr this year, invalidating the EU’s information retentiveness directive, several Member States’ courts choose declared their national constabulary invalid. However, the U.K. regime is going inwards the other direction, tabling emergency legislation today inwards monastic enjoin to retain information retentiveness powers for the UK.  

Does this proposed constabulary autumn inside the reach of European Union law? If so, does it violate the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights? Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 previous ship service on this spider web log assessed to a greater extent than oft than non the interrogation of how the judgment applies to national information retentiveness laws, together with this ship service applies that analysis to the specific illustration of the novel U.K. bill.

First of all, according to Article 51 of the Charter as interpreted past times the CJEU, at that topographic point must hold out a link betwixt the national constabulary together with European Union law. In this case, the link is Article 15(1) of the EU’s e-privacy Directive, which specifies that Member U.S. may restrain the rights inwards that Directive relating to the confidentiality of communications, place together with other traffic information together with caller identification:

'when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate together with proportionate mensurate inside a democratic monastic enjoin to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, world security, together with the prevention, investigation, detection together with prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised usage of the electronic communication system, as referred to inwards Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. To this end, Member U.S. may, inter alia, adopt legislative measures providing for the retentiveness of information for a limited menstruation justified on the grounds pose downward inwards this paragraph. All the measures referred to inwards this paragraph shall hold out inwards accordance amongst the full general principles of Community law, including those referred to inwards Article 6(1) together with (2) of the Treaty on European Union.'

The CJEU has recently confirmed that the European Union Charter applies to derogations from European Union law. More specifically, the CJEU has ruled repeatedly on the application of the Charter to cases where copyright holders choose invoked this clause of the e-privacy Directive to justify planned restrictions upon Internet usage (see nearly late the Telekabel Wien judgment). So logically at that topographic point is every bit a link betwixt European Union constabulary together with the invocation of this clause for other purposes, nearly apparently inwards the criminal constabulary context.

Does the proposed Bill flora an invocation of this clause inwards the e-privacy Directive?  Not explicitly. But at that topographic point is no legal requirement that such an limited link has to hold out made inwards the national legislation concerned.

So let’s hold off at the wording of the Bill. Clause 1 allows the regime to describe upwards a statutory musical instrument that tin necessitate ‘a world telecommunication operator to retain relevant communications data’. Clause 2(1) defines a ‘public telecommunication operator’ as ‘a soul who (a) controls or provides a world telecommunication system, or (b) provides a world telecommunication service’. The Directive applies to (similarly defined) providers of a ‘public communications network’ or ‘electronic communications services’. The information beingness retained would hold out ‘traffic data’ as defined past times before U.K. law, whereas the dominion inwards the e-privacy directive too applies to traffic data. The purposes for which the information would hold out retained inwards usage jibe those referred to inwards the Directive, nearly apparently as regards national security, crime, disorder together with world safety.

So to the extent that at that topographic point is a correspondence betwixt the information beingness retained, the trunk retaining it, together with the purposes for retaining it, the U.K. Bill will, if enacted, hold out linked to European Union law, together with hence the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. There volition clearly hold out such a correspondence inwards many cases.

The minute interrogation is whether the novel U.K. constabulary would violate the Charter. To a large extent, it volition hold out hard to hold out sure on this indicate until the statutory musical instrument is proposed together with adopted, since the Bill would exclusively confer wide powers to human activeness on the government. But Clause 1(2) of the Bill does supply that the telecoms companies powerfulness hold out required to collect ‘all’ information as defined past times the hereafter Act.

If that agency that untargeted information powerfulness hold out collected, that brings us to the interrogation of what the EU’s information retentiveness judgment genuinely means. Does it ban volume surveillance inwards general, or precisely necessitate that such surveillance hold out dependent area to safeguards? If the latter, narrower pregnant is correct, such safeguards could hold out provided for either inwards this Bill and/or inwards the statutory instrument.

According to the CJEU, the safeguards missing from the information retentiveness directive were: a definition of ‘serious crime’; the purpose of subsequent access to the data; limits on the disclose of persons who could access the data; command of access to the information past times agency of a courtroom or other independent administrative authority; stronger rules on the information retentiveness period, for instance as regards the categories of information to hold out retained for the whole period, as good as the protection of the information from unlawful access together with use; rules on an obligation to destroy the data; together with an obligation to retain the information inside the European Union only.

Clause 1(4) of the Bill sets out a non-exhaustive listing of sure safeguards which the regime could include inwards a statutory instrument. This listing partly, but non wholly, corresponds to the listing of safeguards referred to inwards the CJEU judgment. In monastic enjoin to satisfy the CJEU, the subsequent human activeness volition choose to include all of the relevant safeguards to a satisfactory standard.

But fifty-fifty if all such safeguards are indeed provided for, I choose argued previously that the broader interpretation of the Court’s judgment is correct: no volume surveillance is possible. If that is correct, together with so the provision inwards the draft Bill to permit a requirement to collect ‘all’ information is inherently suspect, together with it would sure enough hold out a breach of European Union constabulary to necessitate telecom providers to retain all traffic information inside the reach of the e-privacy Directive without around shape of farther targeting.

In conclusion, much of the UK’s draft Bill would, if adopted, autumn inside the reach of European Union law, together with hence the Charter of Rights. It is possible, depending on the hereafter statutory instrument, that the rules, when applied, volition comply amongst the information retentiveness safeguards demanded past times the CJEU. But the government’s intention, as manifested past times the Bill, to reinstitute volume surveillance of telecoms traffic information is a clear breach of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 6, chapter 9

Share this post