This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/bulk-data-collection-can-only-be-used-to-fight-serious
The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Bulk data collection only lawful in serious crime cases, ECJ rules | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Retaining data from telephone calls and emails is legal only if law enforcement agencies use it to tackle serious crime, the EU’s highest court has ruled. | Retaining data from telephone calls and emails is legal only if law enforcement agencies use it to tackle serious crime, the EU’s highest court has ruled. |
| The preliminary finding by the influential European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg is in response to a legal challenge that was initially brought by David Davis, when he was a backbench Tory, and Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ’s bulk interception of call records and online messages. | |
| In an opinion likely to be followed by the full court, the advocate general, Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, clarified EU law after the two MPs successfully argued in British courts that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014 is illegal. | In an opinion likely to be followed by the full court, the advocate general, Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, clarified EU law after the two MPs successfully argued in British courts that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014 is illegal. |
| The ECJ’s advocate general said: “Solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences … are not.” Only the data associated with calls and emails is retained not the content of messages. | The ECJ’s advocate general said: “Solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences … are not.” Only the data associated with calls and emails is retained not the content of messages. |
| The preliminary ruling appears to bring European data retention practices closer into line with the debate over the passage of the UK’s investigatory powers bill over what safeguards should be imposed for bulk interception and retention of data. | The preliminary ruling appears to bring European data retention practices closer into line with the debate over the passage of the UK’s investigatory powers bill over what safeguards should be imposed for bulk interception and retention of data. |
| The court’s final decision will be delivered in the coming months. The vast majority of judgments follow the line set out by the advocate general. | The court’s final decision will be delivered in the coming months. The vast majority of judgments follow the line set out by the advocate general. |
| Davis and Watson, who were supported by the Law Society, had already won a high court victory on the issue but the government appealed and the case was referred to the ECJ. | |
| At issue was whether there are EU standards on data retention that need to be respected by member states in their domestic legislation. The result, though significant in the short term, may eventually prove academic once the UK has withdrawn from the EU and the ECJ no longer has judicial authority over the UK. | At issue was whether there are EU standards on data retention that need to be respected by member states in their domestic legislation. The result, though significant in the short term, may eventually prove academic once the UK has withdrawn from the EU and the ECJ no longer has judicial authority over the UK. |
| Related: Investigatory powers bill: the key points | Related: Investigatory powers bill: the key points |
| Before he became a minister in under Theresa May, Davis travelled to Luxembourg this spring to hear the case being argued at the ECJ. He has argued that the British government is “treating the entire nation as suspects” by ignoring safeguards on retaining and accessing personal communications data. | |
| The outcome of the Dripa case, which was heard by 15 European judges in Luxembourg, is likely to have a significant impact on the ultimate shape of the controversial investigatory powers bill – it has been nicknamed the snooper’s charter – now before parliament. | The outcome of the Dripa case, which was heard by 15 European judges in Luxembourg, is likely to have a significant impact on the ultimate shape of the controversial investigatory powers bill – it has been nicknamed the snooper’s charter – now before parliament. |
| The case has been heard amid successive jihadi atrocities in Paris, Brussels and Nice which have reinforced political demands for the expansion of powers to intercept emails and phone calls to help catch Islamic State militants operating on the continent. | The case has been heard amid successive jihadi atrocities in Paris, Brussels and Nice which have reinforced political demands for the expansion of powers to intercept emails and phone calls to help catch Islamic State militants operating on the continent. |
| During the Luxembourg hearing, lawyers for the UK government maintained that intercepted communications had been at the heart of every terrorist case investigated by police and the security services in recent years. | During the Luxembourg hearing, lawyers for the UK government maintained that intercepted communications had been at the heart of every terrorist case investigated by police and the security services in recent years. |