Dead ringers? Legal persons and the deceased in European data protection law

Notwithstanding suggestions that the concrete treatment of legal and deceased person data during European data protection's development has been broadly comparable, this article finds that stark divergences are in fact apparent. Justification for the inclusion of both categories has rested on a claimed linkage to living natural person interests. However, despite early fusion, legal persons have been increasingly seen to have qualitatively different information entitlements compared to natural persons, thereby leaving European data protection with a very limited and indirect role here. In contrast, living natural persons and the deceased have not been conceived as normatively dichotomous and since the 1990s there has been growing interest both in establishing sui generis direct protection for deceased person data and also indirect inclusion through a link with living natural persons. Whilst the case for some indirect inclusion is overwhelming, a broad approach to the inter-relational nature of data risks further destabilizing the personal data concept even in relation to living persons alone. Given that jurisdictions representing almost half of the EEA's population now provide some direct protection and the challenges of managing digital data on death continue to grow, the time may be ripe for a ‘soft’ recommendation on direct protection in this area. Drawing on existing law and scholarship, such a recommendation could seek to specify the role of both specific control rights and diffuse confidentiality obligations, the criteria for time-limits in each case and the need for a balance with other rights and interests which recognises the significantly decreasing interest in protection over time.     

Enter the quagmire – the complicated relationship between data protection law and consumer protection law

This article examines the complex relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law, particularly within the EU's online environment, and highlights the problems that stem from this complexity. It suggests that, while there are significant similarities between their respective sources, tools and purposes, there are also arguable differences between consumer protection law and data protection law. One such arguable difference is found in that, while consumer protection law can be seen to merely set a floor in its pursuit of a sufficiently high level of consumer protection, data protection law – due to its clearly articulated dual purposes of (a) protecting individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and (b) providing for the free movement of such data – sets both a floor and a ceiling.Having discussed the relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law in more detail, the argument is made that it seems possible to conclude that the balance struck in the Data Protection Directive, and soon in the General Data Protection Regulation, places limitations on consumer protection law. The implications of this conclusion are then examined briefly in the context of some matters currently coming before the CJEU and the contours of a framework are presented, addressing situations where a data protection-based liability claim is pursued against a third-party non-controller under consumer protection law.     

Will firms consider a European optional instrument in contract law?

The diversity of contract laws is said by the Commission to discourage cross-border trade and hinder the development by SMEs of a pan-European commercial policy. An optional instrument containing both facilitative general contract rules and mandatory consumer protection rules, one of the solutions proposed by the Commission, is gaining rapid support from key stakeholders. Drawing from firms?? own views on the problems of legal diversity, and insights from organisational science, this article sets out the circumstances in which firms will likely consider a European optional code. Results are mixed: some firms may consider it, while others may ignore it. Much depends the firm??s aspirations (i.e. SMEs cannot be assumed as-yet to have pan-European aspirations), how the firm perceives the problems of legal diversity, and how it searches for and decides upon solutions. It would appear that a European optional instrument may not be as useful or widely considered as its proponents would like to believe.     

Who is steering the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice? The influence of Member State submissions on copyright law

The juridification of the European policy process is increasingly fragile, and little understood. This study develops a novel methodology to investigate the influence of Member States on the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The focus is on the domain of copyright law which has seen a dramatic escalation of preliminary references to the Court, indicating a normative void. Examining 170 documents relating to 42 cases registered between 1998 and 2015, we measure empirically the impact of submissions by Member States and the European Commission on the interpretation of copyright concepts. We show that France is the most influential country by some distance, both in terms of the number of interventions (an ‘investment’ in policy) and in terms of persuasive power (arguments adopted by the Court). The evidence also suggests that the departure of the UK from EU litigation will disturb the delicate balance of CJEU jurisprudence.     

One law to rule them all? The reach of EU data protection law after the Google v CNIL case

Google v CNIL is, arguably, one of the landmark cases of EU data protection law and it has been an important development regarding its territorial reach. The judgment's findings in this regard have been controversial and have led to much discussion about their legitimacy and potential repercussions. This paper examines two aspects of this case. First, it considers the holdings of this judgment regarding the global application of EU law in relation to international law and sovereignty. This article argues that though EU decision-makers might have a degree of ‘data imperialism’ in their thinking, this judgment is not at odds with neither international law nor sovereignty. Second, the paper examines the methodology of the Court and the role it accorded to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU– an aspect that many commentators overlook. In this regard, I argue that the Court's methodology was problematic and that it failed to duly consider the role of the Charter, thus fragmenting EU law.     

Revoking consent: A ‘blind spot’ in data protection law?

The flow of personal data throughout the public and private sectors is central to the functioning of modern society. The processing of these data is, however, increasingly being viewed as a major concern, particularly in light of many recent high profile data losses. It is generally assumed that individuals have a right to withdraw, or revoke, their consent to the processing of their personal data by others; however this may not be straightforward in practice, or addressed adequately by the law. Examination of the creation of data protection legislation in Europe and the UK, and its relationship with human rights law, suggests that such a general right to withdraw consent was assumed to be inbuilt, despite the lack of express provisions in both the European Data Protection Directive and UK Data Protection Act. In this article we highlight potential shortcomings in the provisions that most closely relate to this right in the UK Act. These raise questions as to the extent of meaningful rights of revocation, and thus rights of informational privacy, afforded to individuals in a democratic society.     

Is the general data protection regulation the solution?

Never has a text been received with so many requests for amendments; never has the debate around it been so huge. Some see it as a simple duplicate of the Directive 95/46; others present the GDPR, as a monster. In the context of this birthday, it cannot be a question of analyzing this text or of launching new ideas, but simply of raising two questions. I state the first as follows: "In the end, what are the major features that cross and justify this regulation? In addition, the second: "Is the regulation adequate for today's digital challenges to our societies and freedoms? The answers given in the following lines express the opinion of their author. It is just an invitation for a dialogue to go forth in this journal where so many excellent reflections have been published on Digital Law, thanks to our common friend: Steve.     

How to improve china’s witness protection system: an evaluation on protection of witness in the amendment to the criminal procedure law of china

If the personal and property security of witnesses themselves and their family members could not be protected effectively, witnesses may be reluctant to testify, to present in court, or to give truthful testimony. However, the witness protection system provided by China’s legislation is porous, and the implementation of the current witness protection system in practice is not satisfactory, which causes the serious consequence that a witness is unwilling to testify or does not dare to be present in court. An important measure should be adopted to improve the witness protection system in providing practical and comprehensive protection for witnesses in China. The provisions on the protection of witnesses in the drafted amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China is more advanced than the current law, but still too simple and not enough, which cannot change the weak situation of protection of witnesses, and are needed to be strengthened in judicial interpretations after the drafted amendment is passed. Perfection of China’s witness protection system is necessary in practice, which is still dependent on the reform of the judicial system and the working mechanism in China even if the drafted amendment was passed afterwards. China shall apply the provisions in the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the UN Convention against Corruption Convention as a guide and absorb other countries’ and regions’ experience to improve its witness protection system, but the basic point is that it should be based on China’s realities, and localize the specific systems.     

A time to regulate? Possible implications of European human rights law on abortion in Northern Ireland

Since the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 the legality and status of abortion in Northern Ireland, being excluded from the provisions of the 1967 Act, has remained shrouded in uncertainty. In light of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, this article will explore whether this inconsistency in the UK is in breach of the provisions laid down in Articles 8 and 14. It will be shown that while compelling arguments can be built under these provisions, perhaps the most persuasive arguments in favour of law reform are the inequities that the current legal regime has perpetuated.     

MiFID II – A radical contribution to the development of data law?

Away from the hubbub about HFT (High Frequency Trading) a quiet storm is blowing in to the EU that will radically change securities trading in bonds, OTC derivatives and other asset classes. The rules, called MiFID II,² top off the alphabet soup of an extensive new rule book that, after the European Parliament's ‘Super Tuesday’ on 15 April 2014, is finally set to become law. Radical changes are afoot!     

Strategies in international regime negotiations: reflecting background conditions or shaping outcomes?

Negotiation behaviour is usually seen as an intervening variable—adapted to structural and institutional conditions, but with sufficient degrees of freedom to leave its own imprint on outcomes. Little is known, however, about the extent to which negotiation behaviour in fact shapes outcomes. This paper addresses that question, building on data from the Miles et al. (Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002) environmental regimes project. Four main conclusions can be inferred from the analysis. First, the Miles et al. core model seems to account for a fair amount of the variance observed in the strategies adopted by “pushers” and “laggards,” but it also leaves ample scope for other explanations. Second, both of these groups respond to the choice of strategy made by the other. Third, adding negotiation strategies to the Miles et al. core model does not significantly change the conclusions obtained from that model itself. Finally, sometimes negotiation strategies—in particular combinations of strategies—nevertheless make a real difference, often through interplay with other factors. To better understand when and how this occurs, we need models that are more sophisticated and a combination of methodological tools designed for aggregating as well as separating effects.     

A law for need or a law for greed?: Restoring the lost law in the international law of foreign investment

The 1990s brought about a change in the international law of foreign investment due to the primacy achieved by the tenets of neo-liberalism. They drove concerns about the environment and poverty away from the concerns of the law and gave priority to the interests of multinational corporations by enhancing their ability for movement of assets and the absolute protection of these assets through treaty rules. The regime created by this law was operated through secure systems of dispute settlement through arbitration which also enabled the stabilization of these rules. In the process, private power of a section within the hegemonic state was able to subvert international law through the use of low order sources of the law and secure a system of investment promotion and protection. The restoration of the more universal themes of environmental protection and poverty alleviation is necessary. This paper outlines the developments that accentuated the sectional interests of multinational capital and explores the means by which a change that reflects the global interests could be effected.

Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data protection?

The focus of this paper is on the class of robots for personal or domestic use, which are connected to a networked repository on the internet that allows such machines to share the information required for object recognition, navigation and task completion in the real world. The aim is to shed light on how these robots will challenge current rules on data protection and privacy. On one hand, a new generation of network-centric applications could in fact collect data incessantly and in ways that are “out of control,” because such machines are increasingly “autonomous.” On the other hand, it is likely that individual interaction with personal machines, domestic robots, and so forth, will also affect what U.S. common lawyers sum up with the Katz's test as a reasonable “expectation of privacy.” Whilst lawyers continue to liken people's responsibility for the behaviour of robots to the traditional liability for harm provoked by animals, children, or employees, attention should be drawn to the different ways in which humans will treat, train, or manage their robots-in-the-cloud, and how the human–robot interaction may affect the multiple types of information that are appropriate to reveal, share, or transfer, in a given context.