Article 1 GDPR: Difference between revisions
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
Article 1 GDPR is mainly programmatic and sets out the general objectives of the GDPR. While this is relevant for the interpretation of the GDPR, | Article 1 GDPR is mainly programmatic and sets out the general objectives of the GDPR. While this is relevant for the understanding and interpretation of the GDPR, Article 1 has limited legal relevance for controllers and data subjects in daily practice. | ||
===(1) Subject-Matter=== | ===(1) Subject-Matter=== | ||
Article 1(1) establishes the GDPR's two main aims. | Article 1(1) establishes the GDPR's two main aims of the GDPR. First, it aims at protecting natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data, at the same time it recognizes the EU internal market interest in the free movement of such data. Both objectives are already named in the title of the GDPR. | ||
==== Data protection and the free flow of data ==== | ==== Data protection and the free flow of data ==== | ||
The European Union is based on the idea of a common market, that provide for four freedoms, namely the free movement of goods, capital and people, as well as the freedom to establish and provide services. Different | The European Union is based on the idea of a common market, that provide for four freedoms, namely the free movement of goods, capital and people, as well as the freedom to establish and provide services. Different national data protection laws - or indeed the lack of such laws - would conflict with these freedoms. If Member States would for example prohibit that personal data flows to another Member State where there is no equivalent protection, trade between these Member States would be more complicated.<blockquote><u>Example:</u> If France would protect personal data, but Germany would not, the French protections could only be enforced if personal data would not leave France. This could limit commercial options for a German company in France.</blockquote>Consequently the GDPR is tasked with providing a common level of protection, allowing personal data to flow freely within the European common market.<ref>See Recital 10</ref> | ||
==== Natural persons ==== | ==== Natural persons ==== | ||
Article 1(1) also clarifies that the GDPR applies to the processing of personal data concerning natural persons. It follows that the Regulation does not apply to the processing of data belonging to companies or other legal entities.<ref>See Recital 14</ref> | |||
However, if data about a legal entity contains or relates to a natural person, such data is within the scope of the GDPR, as clarified by the CJEU in [[CJEU - C-398/15 - Salvatore Manni|C-398/15 - Salvatore Manni]].<blockquote><u>Example:</u> If the "Peter Smith Limited" company is wholly owned by Peter Smith, who is also the only manager of the company, information as to the revenue about "Peter Smith Limited" can be directly linked to Peter Smith, making the GDPR applicable to such information. Equally, the email peter.smith@examplecompany.com can be linked to Peter Smith and therefore relates to a natural person.</blockquote>You can find more details about the scope of the term "personal data" under [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(1) GDPR]]. Data that only relates to a legal entity or other state or private bodies is not covered by the GDPR. | |||
==== Human rights approach ==== | |||
Non-EU citizens can rely on the GDPR as its application is generally independent of nationality.<ref>See Recital 2 GDPR</ref> This is also in line with Article 8 CFR, as the right to data protection is a human right, that generally applies to all humans, not just EU citizens.<blockquote><u>Example:</u> A Chinese citizen can generally be subject to the GDPR, as the right to data protection is a human right, not a citizens right.</blockquote>While citizenship is not a factor in the GDPR, there are other geographic factors that limit the application of the GDPR. You can find further details about the territorial scope in [[Article 3 GDPR]]. | |||
===(2) Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms === | ===(2) Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms === | ||
According to Article 1(2), the Regulation generally protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as well as “''in particular''” the right to the protection of personal data. Thus, the provisions of the GDPR on the protection of personal data seem to have two objectives. One the one hand, the protection of personal data - which may not come as a surprise. At the same time, the legislator took the view that the protection of personal data also (indirectly) protects other “''fundamental rights and freedoms''”.<ref>''Hornung and Spiecker'' in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 36 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).</ref> | According to Article 1(2), the Regulation generally protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as well as “''in particular''” the right to the protection of personal data. Thus, the provisions of the GDPR on the protection of personal data seem to have two objectives. One the one hand, the protection of personal data - which may not come as a surprise. At the same time, the legislator took the view that the protection of personal data also (indirectly) protects other “''fundamental rights and freedoms''”.<ref>''Hornung and Spiecker'' in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 36 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).</ref> | ||
==== | ==== The fundamental right to data protection ==== | ||
The list of fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the GDPR is not defined. Certainly, one can refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”). The Charter, which is EU primary law, provides for “''the right to the protection of personal data''” of a natural person under Article 8(1) CFR. Some requirements to the processing of data follow from Article 8(2) of the Charter, which explicitly mentions the principles of fairness and purpose limitation, as well as lawfulness. Another essential reference seems to be Article 7 of the Charter, which concerns the right to respect for “''private and family life''” and “''communications''”. | |||
==== High level of protection ==== | |||
The CJEU has stressed in its case law,<ref>See for example [[CJEU - C‑40/17 - Fashion ID|C-40/17 ''Fashion ID'']], paragraph 50, with further references to [[CJEU - Case C-101/01 - Bodil Lindqvist|C‑101/01 ''Lindqvist'']]'', [[CJEU - C-524/06 - Huber|C‑524/06 Huber]]'' or C‑468/10 and C‑469/10 ''ASNEFF and FECEMD''</ref> that the GDPR (and the previous Directive 95/46/EC) is aiming for a "high level of protection".<ref>See Recital 6 and 10</ref> This clause was regularly used to apply a more protective interpretation of the GDPR by the CJEU. The same wording can be found in Recitals 6 and 10. | |||
==== | ==== Other fundamental rights and freedoms ==== | ||
However, the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter do not appear to be the only interests protected by the GDPR. Indeed, processing operations are able to impact other fundamental rights such as personality rights, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of communication, the right of assembly, freedom of religion and other anti-discrimination rights.<ref>''Hornung and Spiecker'' in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 40 (Beck 2019) (accessed 3 September 2021).</ref> | |||
The right to freedom of expression, assembly or to vote may benefit from the right to <blockquote><u>Example:</u> A person may be only really free to vote, if the secrecy of the ballot is ensured. If a person has to fear that her political believes get known to her employer, spouse or friends, she may not actually vote for her real convictions.</blockquote> | |||
It seems clear that, at least occasionally, the right to the protection of personal data may conflict with a range of other interests, such as the free movement of personal data. Although conflicting views exist,<ref>''Scorza'', in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy - Commentario, Article 62 GDPR (Wolters Kluwer 2018).</ref> the approach that gives the right to data protection prevalence over other legally relevant interests should be preferred.<ref>''Hornung et al,'' in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 28 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021). In the same direction, ''Hijmans'', in Kuner et al, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, p. 56 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> | ==== Conflict with other fundamental rights ==== | ||
It seems clear that, at least occasionally, the right to the protection of personal data may conflict with a range of other interests, such as the free movement of personal data. Although conflicting views exist,<ref>''Scorza'', in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy - Commentario, Article 62 GDPR (Wolters Kluwer 2018).</ref> the approach that gives the right to data protection prevalence over other legally relevant interests should be preferred.<ref>''Hornung et al,'' in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 28 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021). In the same direction, ''Hijmans'', in Kuner et al, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, p. 56 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> | |||
In this regard, it has been convincingly noted that the fundamental rights to privacy, personality and data protection are a backbone of a free legal system and that there can be no freedom where the individual is not in control of their data, feels observed, tracked or continuously assessed.<ref>''Hornung et al'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 29 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).</ref> Indeed, Recital 4 clearly states that “''The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind''”, not the opposite. | In this regard, it has been convincingly noted that the fundamental rights to privacy, personality and data protection are a backbone of a free legal system and that there can be no freedom where the individual is not in control of their data, feels observed, tracked or continuously assessed.<ref>''Hornung et al'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 29 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).</ref> Indeed, Recital 4 clearly states that “''The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind''”, not the opposite. |
Revision as of 20:12, 3 August 2022
Legal Text
1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data.
2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data.
3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
Article 1 GDPR is mainly programmatic and sets out the general objectives of the GDPR. While this is relevant for the understanding and interpretation of the GDPR, Article 1 has limited legal relevance for controllers and data subjects in daily practice.
(1) Subject-Matter
Article 1(1) establishes the GDPR's two main aims of the GDPR. First, it aims at protecting natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data, at the same time it recognizes the EU internal market interest in the free movement of such data. Both objectives are already named in the title of the GDPR.
Data protection and the free flow of data
The European Union is based on the idea of a common market, that provide for four freedoms, namely the free movement of goods, capital and people, as well as the freedom to establish and provide services. Different national data protection laws - or indeed the lack of such laws - would conflict with these freedoms. If Member States would for example prohibit that personal data flows to another Member State where there is no equivalent protection, trade between these Member States would be more complicated.
Example: If France would protect personal data, but Germany would not, the French protections could only be enforced if personal data would not leave France. This could limit commercial options for a German company in France.
Consequently the GDPR is tasked with providing a common level of protection, allowing personal data to flow freely within the European common market.[1]
Natural persons
Article 1(1) also clarifies that the GDPR applies to the processing of personal data concerning natural persons. It follows that the Regulation does not apply to the processing of data belonging to companies or other legal entities.[2]
However, if data about a legal entity contains or relates to a natural person, such data is within the scope of the GDPR, as clarified by the CJEU in C-398/15 - Salvatore Manni.
Example: If the "Peter Smith Limited" company is wholly owned by Peter Smith, who is also the only manager of the company, information as to the revenue about "Peter Smith Limited" can be directly linked to Peter Smith, making the GDPR applicable to such information. Equally, the email peter.smith@examplecompany.com can be linked to Peter Smith and therefore relates to a natural person.
You can find more details about the scope of the term "personal data" under Article 4(1) GDPR. Data that only relates to a legal entity or other state or private bodies is not covered by the GDPR.
Human rights approach
Non-EU citizens can rely on the GDPR as its application is generally independent of nationality.[3] This is also in line with Article 8 CFR, as the right to data protection is a human right, that generally applies to all humans, not just EU citizens.
Example: A Chinese citizen can generally be subject to the GDPR, as the right to data protection is a human right, not a citizens right.
While citizenship is not a factor in the GDPR, there are other geographic factors that limit the application of the GDPR. You can find further details about the territorial scope in Article 3 GDPR.
(2) Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
According to Article 1(2), the Regulation generally protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as well as “in particular” the right to the protection of personal data. Thus, the provisions of the GDPR on the protection of personal data seem to have two objectives. One the one hand, the protection of personal data - which may not come as a surprise. At the same time, the legislator took the view that the protection of personal data also (indirectly) protects other “fundamental rights and freedoms”.[4]
The fundamental right to data protection
The list of fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the GDPR is not defined. Certainly, one can refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”). The Charter, which is EU primary law, provides for “the right to the protection of personal data” of a natural person under Article 8(1) CFR. Some requirements to the processing of data follow from Article 8(2) of the Charter, which explicitly mentions the principles of fairness and purpose limitation, as well as lawfulness. Another essential reference seems to be Article 7 of the Charter, which concerns the right to respect for “private and family life” and “communications”.
High level of protection
The CJEU has stressed in its case law,[5] that the GDPR (and the previous Directive 95/46/EC) is aiming for a "high level of protection".[6] This clause was regularly used to apply a more protective interpretation of the GDPR by the CJEU. The same wording can be found in Recitals 6 and 10.
Other fundamental rights and freedoms
However, the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter do not appear to be the only interests protected by the GDPR. Indeed, processing operations are able to impact other fundamental rights such as personality rights, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of communication, the right of assembly, freedom of religion and other anti-discrimination rights.[7]
The right to freedom of expression, assembly or to vote may benefit from the right to
Example: A person may be only really free to vote, if the secrecy of the ballot is ensured. If a person has to fear that her political believes get known to her employer, spouse or friends, she may not actually vote for her real convictions.
Conflict with other fundamental rights
It seems clear that, at least occasionally, the right to the protection of personal data may conflict with a range of other interests, such as the free movement of personal data. Although conflicting views exist,[8] the approach that gives the right to data protection prevalence over other legally relevant interests should be preferred.[9]
In this regard, it has been convincingly noted that the fundamental rights to privacy, personality and data protection are a backbone of a free legal system and that there can be no freedom where the individual is not in control of their data, feels observed, tracked or continuously assessed.[10] Indeed, Recital 4 clearly states that “The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind”, not the opposite.
These aims can function as guiding principles to interpreting the GDPR, together with the data processing principles established in Article 5.[11]
(3) Free Movement of Personal Data
Under Article 1(3) GDPR, the free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons related to personal data protection.
This provision accepts that processing of personal data may be essential for certain economic activities and therefore becomes relevant to the functioning of the EU internal market, which is recognised as an area of free trade of goods, services and capital. Consequently, it appears that where the use of personal data gives rise to the offer of a service, the data protection regulations cannot lead to a limitation in the provision of that service.
A particularly rigid reading of such provision could open the door to a proprietary conception of personal data. However, such an approach seems dogmatically incorrect. This is not only because our identity is not tradeable, but also because it seems to conflict with the very logic of the GDPR, whose main purpose is precisely to control and eventually block the unconditional use of personal data. Indeed, all the provisions concerning the principles of processing (transparency, minimisation, fairness), legal bases, the rights of the data subject and the various obligations related to the security of processing seem to be unequivocally going in this direction.
Let us assume that a controller located in one European country X decides to outsource, under Article 28 GDPR, part of its processing activities to a processor located in another Member State. After a technical assessment, the controller concludes that the processor is unable to provide “sufficient safeguards to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures”. The communication of data in this case will not take place because it would breach data protection law.
In this sense, the text of Article 1(3) GDPR does not seem sufficiently precise and should be interpreted in a GDPR-consistent fashion. In particular, under paragraph 3, the free movement of personal data cannot be limited or restricted outside the cases expressly provided for by the GDPR and any other applicable European or national law.
Finally, Article 1(3) facilitates the harmonization of data protection across EU, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway as part of the European Economic Area (EEA). Restrictions to transfers to non-EU/EEA countries (third countries) follow from Chapter V GDPR.
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 1 GDPR
References
- ↑ See Recital 10
- ↑ See Recital 14
- ↑ See Recital 2 GDPR
- ↑ Hornung and Spiecker in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 36 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).
- ↑ See for example C-40/17 Fashion ID, paragraph 50, with further references to C‑101/01 Lindqvist, C‑524/06 Huber or C‑468/10 and C‑469/10 ASNEFF and FECEMD
- ↑ See Recital 6 and 10
- ↑ Hornung and Spiecker in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 40 (Beck 2019) (accessed 3 September 2021).
- ↑ Scorza, in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy - Commentario, Article 62 GDPR (Wolters Kluwer 2018).
- ↑ Hornung et al, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 28 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021). In the same direction, Hijmans, in Kuner et al, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, p. 56 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Hornung et al, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 29 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).
- ↑ Hornung and Spiecker in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 1 GDPR, margin number 1 (Beck 2019) (accessed 2 September 2021).