Talk:GC - T‑200/21 - JS v EDPS

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 13:12, 17 October 2023 by 136.173.62.130 (talk) (Created page with "• The Comment section of this contribution states that "Regulation 2018/1725 grants EU institutions a unique privilege in data retention, allowing them to retain personal data for 120 years after the date of birth of the data subject and providing them with the flexibility to access this data at their discretion". This is incorrect - Regulation 2018/1725 does not grant such privilege and EU institutions do not hold some obscure "historical data reservoir that can be ta...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

• The Comment section of this contribution states that "Regulation 2018/1725 grants EU institutions a unique privilege in data retention, allowing them to retain personal data for 120 years after the date of birth of the data subject and providing them with the flexibility to access this data at their discretion". This is incorrect - Regulation 2018/1725 does not grant such privilege and EU institutions do not hold some obscure "historical data reservoir that can be tapped into for various purposes over an extensive timeframe". • In fact, in the case at hand, the CJEU has expressly acknowledged that the EDPS has not condoned such a prolonged retention period. §102 of the judgment explicitly states that "The EDPS thus observed that they recommended a retention period for personal data stored in personal files under Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of 10 years as from the termination of employment or as from the last pension payment and it is apparent from its answer to the Court’s question, sent on 10 March 2022, that the SRB took that statement into account." • In the case at hand, the complainant had brought up the proportionality of the SRB's retention period of 120 years after the staff member's date of birth. The EDPS decided not to deal with this in the binding part of his decisions, because it did not make any difference to the legal obligation of the SRB to hold on to the complainant’s personnel file and deny his request for erasure (the subject matter of his complaint). In the judgment, the General Court confirmed in this respect that “In the circumstances of the present case and in the light of the complaint before the EDPS, the principle of sound administration did not require him to exercise his powers of investigation...” (§101) and that “...the EDPS was fully entitled to find that those arguments could not be dealt with in the context of the review procedure.” (§114). • The EDPS has been addressing the issue of retention periods applicable at the SRB and other EUIs. They apply the European Commission’s Common Retention List, a topic the EDPS has been closely examining in the past. In fact, as recently as 5 June 2023, the EDPS has asked the European Commission to re-consider its retention period of 100 years after the recruitment of the staff member and to set out considerably shorter retention periods as a general rule (see https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/23-06-05_third_revision_common_retetion_list_european_commission_en.pdf).