tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post1950952381197384742..comments2024-03-28T02:32:17.979-07:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: Biometric data and data protection law: the CJEU loses the plot Steve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-80283988641991969492022-01-23T20:52:52.278-08:002022-01-23T20:52:52.278-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.BDE TECH Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13622511381042385107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-63209170526170835462018-07-25T19:51:41.800-07:002018-07-25T19:51:41.800-07:00there are times that i think that data gathering f...there are times that i think that data gathering for biometrics will be the death of usNeil Dimapilishttp://www.elid.com.ph/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-74689207916563575122016-08-10T07:29:22.319-07:002016-08-10T07:29:22.319-07:00It is worse.
Original there were 4 questions, so t...It is worse.<br />Original there were 4 questions, so two more than were covered by the Judicial Court.<br />The first question saw on the validity of article 1, paragraph 2, of the European regulation in the light of articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and article 8 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.<br />In addition the court was asked to combine our 7 cases from the Netherlands with the case of Swartz/Bochum from Germany.<br /> <br />Iinitially our national Judges of the Raad van State gave us the opportunity to express our opinion on the subject of the first question, both to the Raad van State and to the judicial court in Luxemburg.<br />We made good use of this opportunity and brought into the discussion a large amount of evidence, which conclusively shows that the intrusion and violation of human rights is a fact.<br /> <br />Faced with this evidence, however, the following happened:<br /> <br />The question to judge our cases simultaneously was rejected. Why ??<br /> <br />Swartz based his argument primarily on the unlawful way the EU regulation had come into effect and covered only slightly the human rights violations and he did not substantiated that with evidence.<br /> <br />As a consequence the verdict in the case Swartz/Bochum argued that the EU regulation did not unlawfully breach the human rights.<br /> <br />This verdict was sent to the Raad van State, with the remark if the first question; the question about the possible violation of the human rights was still to be investigated and answered. <br />To our horror; the Raad van State promptly withdrew this very important and difficult to answer question.<br /><br />We then got the directive from the court in Luxemburg that the original question would not be taken into account and we were ordered not to refer to it in our plea to the court. Ignoring all the evidence, in its final ruling.<br />As a consequence the Raad van State took it for granted that no violation of human rights had to be considered because the judicial Court argued that the EU regulation did not unlawfully breached the human rights.<br /><br />It is a shame these two legal organs conspired to prevent the review of the EU regulation and the Netherlands passports law with regard to the articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and article 8 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.<br />A very bad service was given to a fair and independence legal system.<br />Simply put; we where screwed.<br /><br />Next step will be Strasbourg.<br /><br />W.P. Willemsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-6217286189969765482016-08-08T19:56:10.018-07:002016-08-08T19:56:10.018-07:00It is worse.
Original there were 4 questions, so t...It is worse.<br />Original there were 4 questions, so two more than were covered by the Judicial Court.<br />The first question saw on the validity of article 1, paragraph 2, of the European regulation in the light of articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and article 8 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.<br />In addition the court was asked to combine our 7 cases from the Netherlands with the case of Swartz/Bochum from Germany.<br /> <br />Iinitially our national Judges of the Raad van State gave us the opportunity to express our opinion on the subject of the first question, both to the Raad van State and to the judicial court in Luxemburg.<br />We made good use of this opportunity and brought into the discussion a large amount of evidence, which conclusively shows that the violation of human rights is a fact.<br /> <br />Faced with this evidence, however, the following happens:<br /> <br />The question to judge our cases simultaneously was rejected.<br /> <br />Swartz based his argument primarily on the unlawful way the EU regulation had come into effect and covered only slightly the human rights violations and he did not substantiated that with evidence.<br /> <br />As a consequence the verdict in the case Swartz/Bochum argued that the EU regulation did not unlawfully breach the human rights.<br /> <br />This verdict was sent to the Raad van State, with the remark if the first question; the question about the possible violation of the human rights was still to be investigated and answered. <br />To our horror; the Raad van State promptly withdrew this very important and difficult to answer question.<br /><br />Ignoring all the evidence, in its final ruling the Raad van State took it for granted that no violation of human rights had to be considered because the judicial Court argued that the EU regulation had not unlawfully breached the human rights.<br /><br />It is a shame these two legal organs conspired to prevent the review of the EU regulation and the national passports law with regard to the articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and article 8 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.<br />A very bad service was given to a fair and independence legal system.<br />Simply; we where screwed.<br /><br />Next step will be Strasbourg<br />W.P. Willemsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-70962840754247770322015-07-16T04:36:09.590-07:002015-07-16T04:36:09.590-07:00Data protection is more important than we can ever...Data protection is more important than we can ever imagine, especially since more and more personal data is being extracted really from our lives.<br />Laura | Dutch law firm AMS Advocatenhttp://www.amsadvocaten.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-48721812364725573542015-04-21T04:11:48.124-07:002015-04-21T04:11:48.124-07:00Dear Steve - I fully agree with your view: this is...Dear Steve - I fully agree with your view: this is indeed an appalling abdication of responsibility on the part of the Court. However, at least it was an act of (deliberate) omission: the refusal to look at crucial questions concerning biometric data, in particular the danger of secondary uses/linking of biometrics with other data(bases). The one halfway positive thing is that at least it did not simply ok such secondary uses or linkages. So future national and European (ECtHR) challenges on such matters are at least not pre-empted. Indeed, other national courts can still ask the full questions to the CJEU, in terms that the Luxembourg Court cannot avoid ... But that said, you are quite right to be angry about this ghastly, cowardly judgment. DouweDouwe Korffnoreply@blogger.com