Article 10 GDPR: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(updated with Case C‑439/19) |
||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
Article 10 GDPR is a complementary provision to the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)<ref>[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680 Directive (EU) 2016/680] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.</ref>. It aims to ensure that criminal data processing is still carried out in accordance with the GDPR’s principles and with appropriate safeguards when the LED is not directly applicable. [[Article 2 GDPR|Article 2(2)(d) GDPR]] excludes any processing that falls under the scope of the LED from the scope of the GDPR. Article 10 GDPR is intended to extend the protection of the GDPR to the processing of certain criminal data that is not included in the scope of the LED. Specifically, this includes data that has the potential to lead to stigmatisation, which may lead to profound effects on different aspects of a data subjects' life due to its sensitive nature. For example, when data is inappropriately processed in the employment context.<ref>''Georgieva'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 10 GDPR, p. 388 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020).</ref> | Article 10 GDPR is a complementary provision to the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)<ref>[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680 Directive (EU) 2016/680] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.</ref>. It aims to ensure that criminal data processing is still carried out in accordance with the GDPR’s principles and with appropriate safeguards when the LED is not directly applicable. [[Article 2 GDPR|Article 2(2)(d) GDPR]] excludes any processing that falls under the scope of the LED from the scope of the GDPR. Article 10 GDPR is intended to extend the protection of the GDPR to the processing of certain criminal data that is not included in the scope of the LED. Specifically, this includes data that has the potential to lead to stigmatisation, which may lead to profound effects on different aspects of a data subjects' life due to its sensitive nature. For example, when data is inappropriately processed in the employment context.<ref>''Georgieva'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 10 GDPR, p. 388 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020).</ref> | ||
This position was affirmed by the Court of Justice in Case C‑439/19, ''Latvijas Republikas Saeima''. | This position was affirmed by the Court of Justice in Case C‑439/19, ''Latvijas Republikas Saeima''. In this judgment, the Court noted that data processed under Article 10 GDPR warrants a higher standards of protection for processing and grant of access, as the data which falls under its scope has the potential to expose the data subject to stigmatisation. The Court held that the risk of stigmatisation in itself amounts to severe interference in the data subject's private life for the purposes of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, consequently justifying stricter thresholds for processing. At paragraphs 74 and 75, the Court observed: | ||
''"In that regard, it is to be noted that Article 10 of the GDPR is intended to ensure enhanced protection as regards processing which, because of the particular sensitivity of the data at issue, is liable to constitute a particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter [...] Since the data to which Article 10 of the GDPR refers relates to behaviour that gives rise to social disapproval, the grant of access to such data is liable to stigmatise the data subject and thereby to constitute a serious interference with his or her private or professional life."''<ref>Case C‑439/19, ''Latvijas Republikas Saeima'', paras 74-75. </ref> | |||
=== Criminal “Convictions” and “Offences” === | === Criminal “Convictions” and “Offences” === |
Revision as of 12:18, 18 October 2023
Legal Text
Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures based on Article 6(1) shall be carried out only under the control of official authority or when the processing is authorised by Union or Member State law providing for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Any comprehensive register of criminal convictions shall be kept only under the control of official authority.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
Article 10 GDPR is a complementary provision to the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)[1]. It aims to ensure that criminal data processing is still carried out in accordance with the GDPR’s principles and with appropriate safeguards when the LED is not directly applicable. Article 2(2)(d) GDPR excludes any processing that falls under the scope of the LED from the scope of the GDPR. Article 10 GDPR is intended to extend the protection of the GDPR to the processing of certain criminal data that is not included in the scope of the LED. Specifically, this includes data that has the potential to lead to stigmatisation, which may lead to profound effects on different aspects of a data subjects' life due to its sensitive nature. For example, when data is inappropriately processed in the employment context.[2]
This position was affirmed by the Court of Justice in Case C‑439/19, Latvijas Republikas Saeima. In this judgment, the Court noted that data processed under Article 10 GDPR warrants a higher standards of protection for processing and grant of access, as the data which falls under its scope has the potential to expose the data subject to stigmatisation. The Court held that the risk of stigmatisation in itself amounts to severe interference in the data subject's private life for the purposes of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, consequently justifying stricter thresholds for processing. At paragraphs 74 and 75, the Court observed:
"In that regard, it is to be noted that Article 10 of the GDPR is intended to ensure enhanced protection as regards processing which, because of the particular sensitivity of the data at issue, is liable to constitute a particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter [...] Since the data to which Article 10 of the GDPR refers relates to behaviour that gives rise to social disapproval, the grant of access to such data is liable to stigmatise the data subject and thereby to constitute a serious interference with his or her private or professional life."[3]
Criminal “Convictions” and “Offences”
Article 10 GDPR allows for the processing of data relating to criminal convictions and offences. The term “convictions” makes reference to pronouncements of criminal penalties on perpetrators, instigators or assistants. Actors such as victims or witnesses are not included. However, there is discussion about whether suspects should be included.[4] The notion of “offence" must be interpreted according to Member State law. In addition, the CJEU has established three criteria that must be examined when determining what constitutes a criminal proceeding: the legal classification of the offence under national law, the nature of the offence and the nature as well as degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned is liable to incur.[5]
Conditions for the Processing
However, any processing still needs to rely on a legal basis from Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with the principles enshrined in Article 5 GDPR. Additionally, the processing will still be subject to other GDPR provisions that may be applicable, such as the obligation to carry out a data protection impact assessment from Article 35 GDPR or the obligation to designate a data protection officer from Article 37 GDPR.[6]
Authorised Entities
The processing shall only be carried out by public authorities and private entities that are entitled to do so under Member State law. In this regard, interpreting the norm sensu contrario, the public authorities are those excluded by the scope of Article 3(7) LED. In addition, the national law allowing private entities to process such data shall provide for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Processing by private entities shall happen under direct control of authorised entities; the authorised entity shall be fully or largely responsible for the processing. Mere supervision that does not, in practice, allow for the reliable control of the conditions of individual processing is not enough.[7]
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 10 GDPR
References
- ↑ Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.
- ↑ Georgieva, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 10 GDPR, p. 388 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020).
- ↑ Case C‑439/19, Latvijas Republikas Saeima, paras 74-75.
- ↑ Weichert, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 10 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ CJEU, C‑489/10, 5 June 2012, Bonda, margin number 37 (available here).
- ↑ Georgieva, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 10 GDPR, p. 388 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020).
- ↑ Schiff, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 10 GDPR, margin numbers 7-8 (C.H. Beck, 2nd Edition 2018).