This article is from the source 'bbc' 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26935096
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Top EU court rejects EU-wide data retention law | Top EU court rejects EU-wide data retention law |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The EU's top court has declared "invalid" an EU law requiring telecoms firms to store citizens' communications data for up to two years. | The EU's top court has declared "invalid" an EU law requiring telecoms firms to store citizens' communications data for up to two years. |
| The EU Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2006. The European Court of Justice says it violates two basic rights - respect for private life and protection of personal data. | The EU Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2006. The European Court of Justice says it violates two basic rights - respect for private life and protection of personal data. |
| The EU-wide ruling was prompted by Austrian and Irish complaints. | The EU-wide ruling was prompted by Austrian and Irish complaints. |
| The 28-nation EU is currently drafting a new data protection law. | The 28-nation EU is currently drafting a new data protection law. |
| The ECJ ruling says the 2006 directive allows storage of data on a person's identity, the time of that person's communication, the place from which the communication took place and the frequency of that person's communications. | |
| "By requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data," the court in Luxembourg ruled. | |
| Austrian and Irish courts had asked the ECJ to decide whether the directive complied with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. | |
| The judges acknowledged that data retention was justified in the fight against serious crime and to safeguard public security. But they argued that the directive was disproportionate. | |
| They also said use of the data without an individual's knowledge "is likely to generate in the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance". |