Article 86 GDPR: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:16, 11 August 2021

← Article 86 - Processing and public access to official documents →

Chapter 1: General provisions Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives Article 2: Material scope Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4: Definitions Chapter 2: Principles Article 5: Principles relating to processing of personal data Article 6: Lawfulness of processing Article 7: Conditions for consent Article 8: Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services Article 9: Processing of special categories of personal data Article 10: Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences Article 11: Processing which does not require identification Chapter 3: Rights of the data subject Article 12: Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject Article 13: Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject Article 14: Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject Article 15: Right of access by the data subject Article 16: Right to rectification Article 17: Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) Article 18: Right to restriction of processing Article 19: Notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing Article 20: Right to data portability Article 21: Right to object Article 22: Automated individual decision-making, including profiling Article 23: Restrictions Chapter 4: Controller and processor Article 24: Responsibility of the controller Article 25: Data protection by design and by default Article 26: Joint controllers Article 27: Representatives of controllers or processors not established in the Union Article 28: Processor Article 29: Processing under the authority of the controller or processor Article 30: Records of processing activities Article 31: Cooperation with the supervisory authority Article 32: Security of processing Article 33: Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority Article 34: Communication of a personal data breach to the data subject Article 35: Data protection impact assessment Article 36: Prior consultation Article 37: Designation of the data protection officer Article 38: Position of the data protection officer Article 39: Tasks of the data protection officer Article 40: Codes of conduct Article 41: Monitoring of approved codes of conduct Article 42: Certification Article 43: Certification bodies Chapter 5: Transfers of personal data Article 44: General principle for transfers Article 45: Transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision Article 46: Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards Article 47: Binding corporate rules Article 48: Transfers or disclosures not authorised by Union law Article 49: Derogations for specific situations Article 50: International cooperation for the protection of personal data Chapter 6: Supervisory authorities Article 51: Supervisory authority Article 52: Independence Article 53: General conditions for the members of the supervisory authority Article 54: Rules on the establishment of the supervisory authority Article 55: Competence Article 56: Competence of the lead supervisory authority Article 57: Tasks Article 58: Powers Article 59: Activity reports Chapter 7: Cooperation and consistency Article 60: Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned Article 61: Mutual assistance Article 62: Joint operations of supervisory authorities Article 63: Consistency mechanism Article 64: Opinion of the Board Article 65: Dispute resolution by the Board Article 66: Urgency procedure Article 67: Exchange of information Article 68: European Data Protection Board Article 69: Independence Article 70: Tasks of the Board Article 71: Reports Article 72: Procedure Article 73: Chair Article 74: Tasks of the Chair Article 75: Secretariat Article 76: Confidentiality Chapter 8: Remedies, liability and penalties Article 77: Right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority Article 78: Right to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority Article 79: Right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor Article 80: Representation of data subjects Article 81: Suspension of proceedings Article 82: Right to compensation and liability Article 83: General conditions for imposing administrative fines Article 84: Penalties Chapter 9: Specific processing situations Article 85: Processing and freedom of expression and information Article 86: Processing and public access to official documents Article 87: Processing of the national identification number Article 88: Processing in the context of employment Article 89: Safeguards and derogations relating to processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes Article 90: Obligations of secrecy Article 91: Existing data protection rules of churches and religious associations Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts Article 92: Exercise of the delegation Article 93: Committee procedure Chapter 11: Final provisions Article 94: Repeal of Directive 95: /46: /EC Article 95: Relationship with Directive 20: 02: /58: /EC Article 96: Relationship with previously concluded Agreements Article 97: Commission reports Article 98: Review of other Union legal acts on data protection Article 99: Entry into force and application

Legal Text

Article 86 - Processing and public access to official documents

Personal data in official documents held by a public authority or a public body or a private body for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest may be disclosed by the authority or body in accordance with Union or Member State law to which the public authority or body is subject in order to reconcile public access to official documents with the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation.

Relevant Recitals

4

154

Commentary

Transparency is essential to ensure accountability of European and national public institutions. There are many ways to obtain transparency; one of them is obtaining access to official documents “held by a public authority or a public body or a private body for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest”. Obviously, disclosure of official document containing personal data for transparency reasons may lead to a GDPR-relevant data processing with subsequent risks.

Personal data may be disclosed

The provision under comment, however, seems to simply acknowledge the existence of a potential conflict between transparency and data protection without really providing clear indications as to how disentangle it.

Take previously commented Article 85. In that case the GDPR assigns Member States the task of reconciling freedom of expression (including artistic, literary and academic expression) with data protection rules. In doing so, the Regulation establishes a set of limits that the national legislator is required to respect. For instance, the provision clarifies that the state measure must be “necessary to reconcile” privacy and freedom of expression. Article 85 also lists which parts of the GDPR the national legislator may derogate in order to perform its task.

Under this perspective, Article 86 does not provide any specific instruction. The interest of reconciling data protection and transparency is simply acknowledged “but the provision does not allow for exemptions and derogations from the rules contained in the GDPR nor does it set any further conditions”. In consequence, some argues that “When examining Article 86 GDPR one can wonder what normative value it actually has”.^[1]

The GDPR remains applicable

Having considered the above, it seems reasonable to conclude that the GDPR remains fully applicable in its entirety, with the consequent application of, inter alia, the principles of fair processing,^[2] lawfulness of processing, rights of the data subject and subjection to scrutiny by the supervisory authorities.

The indications offered by the case-law, although not generous, at least confirm this conclusion. For instance, a request for access to personal data was considered well-grounded because the data related to professional activities carried out in the context of a “public defender” activity could not be “considered to be a private matter”.^[3]

A somewhat similar approach was adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. A Dutch journalist had filed an access request concerning the functioning of an additional pension scheme for MEPs. The Parliament rejected the request in order to protect the privacy of parliamentarians. The ECJ, however, annulled this decision because disclosure would not prejudice the legitimate interests of the MEPs. In particular, “it must therefore be held that, in weighing up the interests engaged, the legitimate interests of the MEPs who are members of the additional pension scheme, which fall into the public sphere of those MEPs, must be subject to a lesser degree of protection than that which, following the logic of Regulation No 45/2001, would be enjoyed by the interests falling into their private sphere”.^[4]

In conclusion, as Kranenborg correctly states, the case law of the ECtHR as well as the case law of the CJEU show that there are two criteria to assess whether disclosure of data is justified: “the distinction between private and professional matters and the 'public nature' of the data”. However, these serve only as general indications for both courts and lawmakers, leaving the actual assessment to a case by case analysis.

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 86 GDPR

References

↑ See, Kranenborg, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 86 GDPR, p. 1216 (Oxford University Press 2020).
↑ On this point, careful literature makes it clear that “the Union or Member State law referred to in Article 86 on which disclosure can be based is no different from a Union or Member State law referred to in Article 6 GDPR”. Recital 154 also seems to go in this direction as it states that public access to official documents may be considered to be in “the public interest”. See, Kranenborg, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 86 GDPR, p. 1216 (Oxford University Press 2020).
↑ ECtHR, Magyar Helsinki Bizottsdg, 8.11.2016, 18030/11, § 194.
↑ ECJ, Dennekamp v. European Parliament, 15.7.2015, T-115/13, § 124

[1] See, Kranenborg, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 86 GDPR, p. 1216 (Oxford University Press 2020).

[2] On this point, careful literature makes it clear that “the Union or Member State law referred to in Article 86 on which disclosure can be based is no different from a Union or Member State law referred to in Article 6 GDPR”. Recital 154 also seems to go in this direction as it states that public access to official documents may be considered to be in “the public interest”. See, Kranenborg, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 86 GDPR, p. 1216 (Oxford University Press 2020).

[3] ECtHR, Magyar Helsinki Bizottsdg, 8.11.2016, 18030/11, § 194.

[4] ECJ, Dennekamp v. European Parliament, 15.7.2015, T-115/13, § 124

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 == Commentary ==
+Transparency is essential to ensure accountability of European and national public institutions. There are many ways to obtain transparency; one of them is obtaining access to official documents “''held by a public authority or a public body or a private body for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest''”. Obviously, disclosure of official document containing personal data for transparency reasons may lead to a GDPR-relevant data processing with subsequent risks.
+==== Personal data may be disclosed ====
+The provision under comment, however, seems to simply acknowledge the existence of a potential conflict between transparency and data protection without really providing clear indications as to how disentangle it.
+Take previously commented Article 85. In that case the GDPR assigns Member States the task of reconciling freedom of expression (including artistic, literary and academic expression) with data protection rules. In doing so, the Regulation establishes a set of limits that the national legislator is required to respect. For instance, the provision clarifies that the state measure must be “''necessary to reconcile''” privacy and freedom of expression. Article 85 also lists which parts of the GDPR the national legislator may derogate in order to perform its task.
+Under this perspective, Article 86 does not provide any specific instruction. The interest of reconciling data protection and transparency is simply acknowledged “''but the provision does not allow for exemptions and derogations from the rules contained in the GDPR nor does it set any further conditions''”. In consequence, some argues that “''When examining Article 86 GDPR one can wonder what normative value it actually has''”.<ref>See, ''Kranenborg'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 86 GDPR, p. 1216 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>
+==== The GDPR remains applicable ====
+Having considered the above, it seems reasonable to conclude that the GDPR remains fully applicable in its entirety, with the consequent application of, inter alia, the principles of fair processing,<ref>On this point, careful literature makes it clear that “''the Union or Member State law referred to in Article 86 on which disclosure can be based is no different from a Union or Member State law referred to in Article 6 GDPR''”. Recital 154 also seems to go in this direction as it states that public access to official documents may be considered to be in “the public interest”. See, ''Kranenborg'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 86 GDPR, p. 1216 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> lawfulness of processing, rights of the data subject and subjection to scrutiny by the supervisory authorities.
+The indications offered by the case-law, although not generous, at least confirm this conclusion. For instance, a request for access to personal data was considered well-grounded because the data related to professional activities carried out in the context of a “public defender” activity could not be “''considered to be a private matter''”.<ref>ECtHR, Magyar Helsinki Bizottsdg, 8.11.2016, 18030/11, § 194.</ref>
+A somewhat similar approach was adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. A Dutch journalist had filed an access request concerning the functioning of an additional pension scheme for MEPs. The Parliament rejected the request in order to protect the privacy of parliamentarians. The ECJ, however, annulled this decision because disclosure would not prejudice the legitimate interests of the MEPs. In particular, “''it must therefore be held that, in weighing up the interests engaged, the legitimate interests of the MEPs who are members of the additional pension scheme, which fall into the public sphere of those MEPs, must be subject to a lesser degree of protection than that which, following the logic of Regulation No 45/2001, would be enjoyed by the interests falling into their private sphere''”.<ref>ECJ, Dennekamp v. European Parliament, 15.7.2015, T-115/13, § 124</ref>
+In conclusion, as Kranenborg correctly states, the case law of the ECtHR as well as the case law of the CJEU show that there are two criteria to assess whether disclosure of data is justified: “''the distinction between private and professional matters and the 'public nature' of the data''”. However, these serve only as general indications for both courts and lawmakers, leaving the actual assessment to a case by case analysis.
 == Decisions ==