Modernizing the legal framework for the protection of personal data or shrinking protection?
The new amendment of Law 2472/1997
An amendment to Law 3635/2007, which ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on child trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography , amended the provisions of Law 2472/1997 "Protection of the the processing of personal data ". The new arrangements included in the amendment "deal with" crucial issues concerning the processing of personal data by prosecutors and judicial authorities, however, the choices made by the legislator could be criticized.
In particular, exceptions that are unjustified, such as, in particular, the exclusion from the scope of the law on data processing by the judicial - prosecution authorities and the services acting under their direct supervision in the context of the award of the law justice or servicing the needs of their operation for the purpose of establishing crimes punishable as crimes or delinquencies by deceit (Article 3 § 2, paragraph 2472/1997). Of course, the introductory report on the bill states that an exemption is provided for in the Community Directive 95/46 / EEC, but this is due to the fact that this directive is a first-pillar directive (which the legislator does not know?).
Furthermore, this exception is in conflict with provisions of international treaties signed by our country, such as Convention No. 108/1981 of the Council of Europe and Article 8 of the ECHR. But the main thing is that it is unconstitutional to provide for an exception to the law on the protection of personal data in the above case.
The question is whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the protection of personal data of those involved in criminal proceedings and other substantive law provisions to which the law refers in general is sufficient. In our view, both the CWC and the other (except 2472/1997) laws do not offer adequate protection, in particular because if they offered such protection there would be no reason to introduce Law 2472/1997 from the beginning.
Further, in Article 2, b. 2472/1997 states that "Particularly on criminal prosecutions or convictions may only be made public by the Public Prosecutor for offenses against life, against sexual freedom, the exploitation of sexual life, against personal liberty , against property, against property rights, drug law offenses, public order, and victims of juvenile delinquency ,by order of the competent Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance or of the Prosecutor of Appeals, if the case is pending at the Court of Appeal. This disclosure is intended to protect the community, minors, vulnerable or vulnerable population groups and to make it easier for the State to punish the above offenses. "
Beyond the legal objections that can be made to the disclosure of personal data of the perpetrators of offenses, it is unclear what perception of justice, guided by the Greek legislator, is that which imposes a punishment on a person for the the act of a punishment!
Finally, the regulation concerning the filming of protesters is problematic (Article 3 § 2 of the Law 2472/1997). We would point out that the legislator could provide for a specific provision specifically regulating the issue of camera surveillance, even by introducing arrangements diverging from the no. 1122/2000 of the Authority for the Protection of Personal Data and other decisions of the Authority on specific matters . Instead, it has been chosen to terminate this provision, which allows the simple operation of recording devices and the recording of criminal offenses.
As such, this provision - as regards the operation of recording equipment - is in principle incompatible with the constitutional right to freedom of assembly as it restricts this right unacceptably because the public, when they know they are being monitored, will feel fear and legitimate concern for them lead to non-participation even in peaceful demonstrations. Furthermore, the right to privacy and personal data is also restricted, because the filming process is carried out under the supervision of the prosecuting and judicial authorities, however, there is no control by an independent authority nor does Law 2472/1997 apply!
As regards, however, the recording of sound and image for the purpose of establishing an offense, the guarantees which surround it are important, with the result that no particular concern arises. In any case, we believe that this regulation, and more generally, the question of video surveillance, should be better elaborated and be the subject of a special article of law or a special law.
An amendment to Law 3635/2007, which ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on child trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography , amended the provisions of Law 2472/1997 "Protection of the the processing of personal data ". The new arrangements included in the amendment "deal with" crucial issues concerning the processing of personal data by prosecutors and judicial authorities, however, the choices made by the legislator could be criticized.
In particular, exceptions that are unjustified, such as, in particular, the exclusion from the scope of the law on data processing by the judicial - prosecution authorities and the services acting under their direct supervision in the context of the award of the law justice or servicing the needs of their operation for the purpose of establishing crimes punishable as crimes or delinquencies by deceit (Article 3 § 2, paragraph 2472/1997). Of course, the introductory report on the bill states that an exemption is provided for in the Community Directive 95/46 / EEC, but this is due to the fact that this directive is a first-pillar directive (which the legislator does not know?).
Furthermore, this exception is in conflict with provisions of international treaties signed by our country, such as Convention No. 108/1981 of the Council of Europe and Article 8 of the ECHR. But the main thing is that it is unconstitutional to provide for an exception to the law on the protection of personal data in the above case.
The question is whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the protection of personal data of those involved in criminal proceedings and other substantive law provisions to which the law refers in general is sufficient. In our view, both the CWC and the other (except 2472/1997) laws do not offer adequate protection, in particular because if they offered such protection there would be no reason to introduce Law 2472/1997 from the beginning.
Further, in Article 2, b. 2472/1997 states that "Particularly on criminal prosecutions or convictions may only be made public by the Public Prosecutor for offenses against life, against sexual freedom, the exploitation of sexual life, against personal liberty , against property, against property rights, drug law offenses, public order, and victims of juvenile delinquency ,by order of the competent Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance or of the Prosecutor of Appeals, if the case is pending at the Court of Appeal. This disclosure is intended to protect the community, minors, vulnerable or vulnerable population groups and to make it easier for the State to punish the above offenses. "
Beyond the legal objections that can be made to the disclosure of personal data of the perpetrators of offenses, it is unclear what perception of justice, guided by the Greek legislator, is that which imposes a punishment on a person for the the act of a punishment!
Finally, the regulation concerning the filming of protesters is problematic (Article 3 § 2 of the Law 2472/1997). We would point out that the legislator could provide for a specific provision specifically regulating the issue of camera surveillance, even by introducing arrangements diverging from the no. 1122/2000 of the Authority for the Protection of Personal Data and other decisions of the Authority on specific matters . Instead, it has been chosen to terminate this provision, which allows the simple operation of recording devices and the recording of criminal offenses.
As such, this provision - as regards the operation of recording equipment - is in principle incompatible with the constitutional right to freedom of assembly as it restricts this right unacceptably because the public, when they know they are being monitored, will feel fear and legitimate concern for them lead to non-participation even in peaceful demonstrations. Furthermore, the right to privacy and personal data is also restricted, because the filming process is carried out under the supervision of the prosecuting and judicial authorities, however, there is no control by an independent authority nor does Law 2472/1997 apply!
As regards, however, the recording of sound and image for the purpose of establishing an offense, the guarantees which surround it are important, with the result that no particular concern arises. In any case, we believe that this regulation, and more generally, the question of video surveillance, should be better elaborated and be the subject of a special article of law or a special law.
About Jhon Petter
No comments