Unblurring the Fuzzy Line Between Specialty and Data Protection in EU Mutual Legal Assistance After the European Investigation Order
The purpose limitation principle takes a central place in data privacy law. The specialty principle plays a key role in international cooperation in criminal matters, including in the context of mutual legal assistance (MLA), which is aimed at the cross-border collection and use of information and e...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2023
|
| En: |
European journal on criminal policy and research
Año: 2023, Volumen: 29, Número: 4, Páginas: 647-667 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Rights Information: | CC BY 4.0 |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | The purpose limitation principle takes a central place in data privacy law. The specialty principle plays a key role in international cooperation in criminal matters, including in the context of mutual legal assistance (MLA), which is aimed at the cross-border collection and use of information and evidence. Since the specialty principle also frames use limitations for information or evidence obtained through MLA and must therefore be considered a traditional MLA correlative of the purpose limitation principle in data privacy law, both concepts are clearly intertwined. However, since the entry into force of the European Investigation Order, and the EU Data Protection Directive 2016/680 for Police and Criminal Justice, it has become unclear how both principles interplay, and what that implies for the rights position of the data subject or person concerned. This paper unblurs the fuzzy line between specialty and data protection in the current EU MLA context. Based on historical and conceptual analysis, the paper unravels whether the new data protection provisions of the European Investigation Order and Directive 2,016,680 have speciality features and, if so, to which extent they effectively serve a specialty function. This paper does not only demonstrate that both principles do not fully equate with one another, but features an analysis of how they differ, both conceptually and functionally. It argues and concludes that only a fuller, generic specialty rule and data ownership principle have the potential to promote free movement of information and evidence, whilst equally enhancing the procedural rights position of persons concerned. |
|---|---|
| Notas: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 664-667 |
| ISSN: | 1572-9869 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10610-023-09539-9 |