The European Union as guardian of internet privacy: the story of art 16 TFEU
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Abschlussarbeit Buch |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
[Cham]
Springer
[2016]
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Law, governance and technology series
Volume 31 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Klappentext |
| Beschreibung: | xxxii, 604 Seiten |
| ISBN: | 9783319340890 9783319340906 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV043866691 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20170224 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 161108s2016 m||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 020 | |a 9783319340890 |9 978-3-319-34089-0 | ||
| 020 | |a 9783319340906 |9 978-3-319-34090-6 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)965604935 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BSZ477933483 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-739 |a DE-M382 |a DE-384 | ||
| 084 | |a PZ 4600 |0 (DE-625)141181: |2 rvk | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hijmans, Hielke |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1047849518 |4 aut | |
| 240 | 1 | 0 | |a The European Union as a constitutional guardian of internet privacy and data protection |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a The European Union as guardian of internet privacy |b the story of art 16 TFEU |c Hielke Hijmans |
| 264 | 1 | |a [Cham] |b Springer |c [2016] | |
| 300 | |a xxxii, 604 Seiten | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Law, governance and technology series |v Volume 31 | |
| 502 | |b Dissertation |c Universiteit van Amsterdam |d 2016 | ||
| 630 | 0 | 7 | |a Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union |0 (DE-588)7619701-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Persönlichkeitsrecht |0 (DE-588)4045245-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Internet |0 (DE-588)4308416-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4113937-9 |a Hochschulschrift |2 gnd-content | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union |0 (DE-588)7619701-3 |D u |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Persönlichkeitsrecht |0 (DE-588)4045245-1 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Internet |0 (DE-588)4308416-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Law, governance and technology series |v Volume 31 |w (DE-604)BV037211616 |9 31 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung UB Passau - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung UB Passau - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Klappentext |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-029276665 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804176751586181120 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Contents
1 Introduction......................................................... 1
1.1 Trigger of This Book: A Perceived Loss of Control........ 1
1.2 A First Outline of Article 16 TFEU....................... 4
1.2.1 The EU Mandate Under Article 16 TFEU
to Ensure Privacy and Data Protection............ . 4
1.2.2 Legitimacy and Effectiveness as Prerequisites
for Trust........................................... 5
1.2.3 Background.......................................... 6
1.3 The Structure of This Book................................... 7
1.4 Methodology................................................. 11
1.5 Further Limitations......................................... 13
1.6 Terminology................................................. 14
References......................................................... 15
2 Privacy and Data Protection as Values of the EU That Matter,
Also in the Information Society.................................... 17
2.1 Introduction................................................ 18
2.2 Privacy and Data Protection as Part of an EU Based
on Values: A General Design................................. 19
2.2.1 Privacy, Data Protection and the Ambitions
of the EU in Promoting Its Values.................. 19
2.3 Privacy and Data Protection as Constitutional Values
That Matter, Also on the Internet......................... 20
2.3.1 Two Elements Stand Out: There Are No Good
or Bad People, and Monitoring
Changes Behaviour.................................. 22
2.4 Ambitions of the EU in Promoting Democracy:
Democracy Requires a Free Internet,
but Not an Unprotected Internet........................... 24
2.4.1 Democracy as Guiding Principle in Relation
to the Internet.................................... 24
IX
X
Contents
2.4.2 A Free Internet Does Not Mean
an Unprotected Internet.......................... 25
2.4.3 Democracy and the EU............................. 26
2.5 Ambitions of the EU in Promoting the Rule of Law:
How to Ensure Effective Privacy and Data Protection
on the Internet Under the Rule of Law..................... 27
2.5.1 Understanding the Concept of the Rule of Law..... 27
2.5.2 The Rule of Law and Its Relation
to Fundamental Rights............................ 29
2.5.3 Effective Legal Protection for Everyone............. 29
2.5.4 The Rule of Law Has a Close Link
with the Right to Data Protection................ 30
2.6 Ambitions of the EU in Promoting Fundamental Rights:
Understanding the Context of Privacy and Data Protection
and the Internet Under EU Law............................. 32
2.6.1 The Broad Applicability of Fundamental Rights:
Application in All Situations.................... 32
2.6.2 Fundamental Rights Protection and the Internet... 34
2.7 Fundamental Rights Protection Against Private
Parties Acquires a New Dimension on the Internet,
Particularly for Privacy and Data Protection.............. 35
2.7.1 Four Arguments Supporting Direct
Applicability in Horizontal Situations.............. 36
2.8 The Right to Privacy, a Broad and Dynamic Concept
on the Internet Extending to the Public Sphere............ 39
2.8.1 Historical Development of Privacy, Starting
with Warren and Brandeis.......................... 39
2.8.2 Human Dignity and Personal Autonomy
as Underlying Values and the Broad
Scope of Privacy.................................... 40
2.9 Understanding the Nature of the Right to Privacy
Through Four Types of Qualified Interests:
Information Use by Governments, Health,
Vulnerable Groups and Reputation............................. 43
2.9.1 Four Types of Qualified Interests: Information
Use by Governments, Health, Vulnerable Groups
and Reputation...................................... 44
2.9.2 Summing Up: All Use of Personal Information
Falls Within the Scope of the Right to Privacy
Under Article 7 Charter............................. 47
2.10 Historical Development of the Right to Data Protection,
Starting as a Response to Technological Developments...... 48
2,10.1 The Council of Europe’s Role in Developing
Instruments on Data Protection...................... 49
Contents
xi
2.10.2 The EU: Growing Emphasis on Respecting
Constitutional Values in Addition to the Objective
of Market Integration................................ 49
2.10.3 A Separate Development in the Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice, Leading to a Patchwork......... 51
2.11 The Right to Data Protection: A Claim Based
on Fairness Providing Safeguards Where Personal
Data Are Processed......................................... . 54
2.11.1 Does the Right to Data Protection Serve
to Give an Individual Control Over Personal
Information?......................................... 55
2.11.2 Is the Right to Data Protection a Claim Based
on Fairness, Providing Safeguards Where
Personal Data Are Processed?......................... 56
2.11.3 The Right to Data Protection Provides
for a System of Checks and Balances Based
on Fairness.......................................... 57
2.12 Data Protection as ‘Rules of the Game’ or ‘a System
of Checks and Balances’....................................... 59
2.12.1 Diverging Views on the Legitimacy
of Processing Personal Data.......................... 59
2.12.2 Summing Up: The EU and the Member
States Must Establish Checks and Balances............ 61
2.13 Privacy and Data Protection: Two Sides
of the Same Coin.............................................. 62
2.13.1 It Is Not Important to Distinguish
Between Privacy and Data Protection
on the Internet...................................... 66
2.13.2 A Further Argument for Not Distinguishing
Between Privacy and Data Protection: The Law
of the United States................................. 67
2.14 A Proposal for a Solution Considering Both Fundamental
Rights as Part of One System.................................. 68
2.15 Conclusions................................................. 70
References............................................................ 73
3 Internet and Loss of Control in an Era of Big Data
and Mass Surveillance................................................. 77
3.1 Introduction.................................................. 78
3.2 A General Design of the Internet and the Loss of Control
Over Personal Data............................................ 79
3.3 The Internet as a Single Unfragmented Space with a Loose
Governance Structure.......................................... 81
3.3.1 Interconnected and Loosely Governed by Multiple
Stakeholders......................................... 81
Contents
xii
3.3.2 Responsibility for the Integrity of the System,
the Continuity of the Services
and Security Threats................................. 83
3.4 At the Core of the Internet, Networked Societies
and Globalisation: Is Fragmentation a Threat?.................. 85
3.4.1 Networked Societies Are Vulnerable.................... 86
3.4.2 Globalisation, a Trigger for Innovation
and Growth........................................... 88
3.4.3 Is Fragmentation of the Internet a Threat?............ 89
3.5 The Internet in Terms of Freedom and Powers:
Is There a Shift from Freedom to Power?..................... 91
3.5.1 Freedom, a Free Internet as a Common Good............. 91
3.5.2 Power on the Internet................................. 93
3.6 Big Data Justifies a Qualitative Shift in Thinking.......... 96
3.6.1 Big Data Is Really New
and a Fundamental Change............................. 97
3.6.2 Big Data Is Pervasive in the Daily Life
of Individuals....................................... 99
3.7 People Can No Longer Evade Surveillance
Through Electronic Means....................................... 101
3.7.1 Surveillance from Different Perspectives............. 102
3.7.2 Different Types of Surveillance,
But the Distinctions Are Not Always Crystal Clear. . . 104
3.8 No Strict Distinction Between Surveillance by the State
and by the Private Sector...................................... 106
3.8.1 The Various Types of Surveillance Are Not
Necessarily Different in Terms of Intrusiveness... 108
3.8.2 Democratic Legitimacy and Accountability
of Surveillance, in Relation to Secrecy
and Cooperation with the Private Sector............. 109
3.9 The Perspective of the EU and the Member States:
What Is Changing?........................................... 110
3.9.1 The Governance of the Internet and a Declining
Role for the State.................................. Ill
3.9.2 The Reality of the Internet Changes Privacy
and Data Protection and the Balancing with Other
Fundamental Rights and Public Interests............. 112
3.9.3 The EU and the Member States Depend
on Private Parties.................................. 114
3.9.4 Conflicts of Jurisdiction Are an Inherent
Phenomenon on the Internet and Should
Be Addressed........................................ 115
3.10 Introductory Ideas on How the EU and Its Member
States Could Regain Control................................... 116
3.10.1 Three Basic Conditions............................... 116
Contents
xiii
3.10.2 Five Directions..................................... 117
3.11 Conclusions................................................. 119
References........................................................... 121
4 The Mandate of the EU Under Article 16 TFEU
and the Perspectives of Legitimacy and Effectiveness................ 125
4.1 Introduction............................................... 125
4.2 A General Design of the Mandate Under Article
16 TFEU: The Member States Are Important Actors............ 126
4.2.1 The Context: Article 16 TFEU Gives a Mandate
to the EU, But the Member States Remain
Important Actors. ....................... 128
4.2.2 Legitimacy and Effectiveness: Perspectives
for Understanding the Mandate of the EU............. 129
4.3 A First Specification of the Mandate Under Article 16
TFEU: Broad Powers of the EU, But a Shared Competence,
and an Outline of the Three Tasks............................ 130
4.3.1 Wide Powers of the EU in Privacy
and Data Protection................................ 130
4.3.2 Article 16 TFEU Is a Shared Competence,
But in Practice Complete.......................... 131
4.3.3 An Outline of the Three Tasks of the EU
Under Article 16 TFEU............................... 133
4.4 The Exercise of the Mandate Under Article 16 TFEU
Should Comply with the Principles of Subsidiarity
and Proportionality.......................................... 135
4.4.1 Testing EU Data Protection Action
on Subsidiarity and Proportionality................. 135
4.4.2 Member State Competences in Competing Areas .... 137
4.5 Security Agencies Could Be Covered by EU Data
Protection Despite the Limitations to EU Competence
in Respect of National Identities, National Security
and Cultural Differences .................................... 138
4.5.1 The National Identities of the EU Member States.... 138
4.5.2 The Notion of National Security, in Relation
to Public Security and State Security............... 139
4.5.3 National Security of Third Countries................ 143
4.5.4 Cultural Differences and Cultural Diversity ........ 144
4.6 Further Limitations Due to the EU’s Organisational
Structure: Decentralised Implementation...................... 145
4.6.1 Decentralised Implementation and Cooperation....... 145
4.6.2 Sincere Cooperation as a Means to Regain Control
Over Fundamental Rights Protection.................. 146
4.7 Enforcement and the Organisation of Judicial Protection
Are Normally Tasks of the Member States..................... 148
XIV
Contents
4.7.1 Administrative Law Enforcement: Multi-level
Governance or Shared Administration................. 149
4.7.2 Judicial Protection: The Principle of National
Procedural Autonomy................................. 150
4.8 Democratic Legitimacy of EU Action
Under Article 16 TFEU: A Prerequisite for Trust............ 151
4.8.1 Fundamental Rights and the Academic
Controvery on Democratic Legitimacy................. 151
4.8.2 The Legitimacy of EU Action Depends
on the Subject Area................................. 152
4.9 The EU and Its Citizens: The Concept of EU Citizenship
Contributes to the Legitimacy of the EU’s Role
Under Article 16 TFEU........................................ 154
4.9.1 EU Citizenship: EU Citizens’ Expectations
That Their Rights Are Protected..................... 155
4.10 Four Arguments Relating to a Lack of Legitimacy
of EU Action................................................. 157
4.10.1 The Lack of Legitimacy Captured
in Four Arguments................................... 157
4.10.2 Democratic Legitimacy Formally Closer
to the Optimum, But Socially
Not Widely Accepted................................. 160
4.11 The Background According to Weiler:
The Crisis of Social Legitimacy............................ 162
4.12 The Legitimacy of EU Action in Relation
to the Member States: A Broad Mandate in a Pluralist
Legal Context................................................ 164
4.12.1 Member States’ Reticence to Enhance EU Power.... 164
4.12.2 A Pluralist Legal Context........................... 166
4.13 Primacy Is Potentially in Conflict with the Protection
of Fundamental Rights by the Member States................. 167
4.13.1 Different Positions Taken on the Primacy
of EU Law by National Courts........................ 168
4.13.2 Schrems as Example of a Potential Conflict
Between Primacy and Respect of Privacy
and Data Protection............................... 170
4.14 Legitimacy Based on Output: Required to Regain Control
Over Privacy and Data Protection, But Not Sufficient....... 171
4.15 Effectiveness: Delivering Privacy on the Ground............ 174
4.15.1 Empowerment of Individuals.......................... 175
4.15.2 Data Controllers ’ Responsibility:
Multi-stakeholder Solutions as an Alternative
for Command-and-Control Legislation................. 177
4.15.3 Enforcement as a Key Element of Effectiveness..... 178
4.16 Conclusions.................................................. 129
References........................................................... 182
Contents
xv
5 Understanding and Assessing the Contribution of the CJEU
to the Mandate Under Article 16 TFEU............................ 185
5.1 Introduction............................................. 185
5.2 The General Design on the Task of the CJEU
Under Article 16 TFEU: How to Cope
with the Remarkable Features of This Provision?.......... 186
5.3 The Institutional Role of the CJEU in the Constitutional
Order of the EU.......................................... 188
5.3.1 The CJEU Acting as a Constitutional Court
with Three Functions: The Review
of Fundamental Rights, Market Integration
and Umpire Between the Different Powers......... 189
5.3.2 The Perception of an Activist CJEU.............. 190
5.3.3 Strengths and Weaknesses
in the Role of the CJEU......................... 191
5.4 The Legitimacy of the CJEU: Compensating
for the Presumed Democratic Deficit of the EU............ 193
5.4.1 Legitimacy: The CJEU’s Constitutional
Role Requires Some Nuancing....................... 194
5.4.2 Effectiveness: The CJEU Contributes
to Bridging the Gap Between Principles
and Practice ..................................... 196
5.5 Until the Lisbon Treaty: Emergence of Fundamental
Rights in the EU Legal Order............................... 197
5.5.1 Connection to Fundamental Rights
Under National Law................................ 197
5.5.2 A Systematic Review of EU Law, in Light
of the ECHR....................................... 199
5.5.3 Before the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty:
An Increasing Role of Fundamental Rights,
but Article 7 and 8 Charter Are Only
Mentioned Once.................................... 200
5.6 The Charter Since the Entry into Force of the Lisbon
Treaty: A Fundamental Change of Approach of the CJEU..... 202
5.6.1 A General Outline of the Fundamental
Rights Assessment by the CJEU Based
on Article 52 (1) Charter......................... 203
5.6.2 The Proportionality Test Is Key
in the Case Law of the CJEU..................... 204
5.6.3 The Charter as Yardstick........................ 205
5.6.4 The Charter Has a Wide Scope, but Does
Not Extend the Competences of the EU............ 208
XVI
Contents
5.7 The Test Under the Charter Is Strict and Considers
a Number of Factors........................................ 209
5.7.1 Schecke, Test-Achats, and Google Spain
and Google Inc; Three Cases of Stringent
Testing by the CJEU................................ 210
5.7.2 The Same Strict Test Does Not Necessarily
Extend to All Fundamental Rights
Under the Charter.................................. 211
5.8 The Notion of Fundamental Rights: Different Methods
of Defining Fundamental Rights Are Useful
for Understanding Fundamental Rights......................... 212
5.8.1 A Positivist Method of Defining
Fundamental Rights ................................ 213
5.8.2 A Definition of Fundamental Rights
by Their Nature of Moral Value..................... 214
5.8.3 The Historical Method: Establishing
the Fundamental Nature of Rights Using
Their Backgrounds.................................. 216
5.9 Distinctions Between Fundamental Rights
on the Internet: Towards a Simple Taxonomy................. 217
5.9.1 Towards a Simple Taxonomy......................... 218
5.9.2 The Taxonomy Could Enable the CJEU
to Elaborate Its Case Law, Further Strengthening
the Protection of Individuals on the Internet.... 221
5.10 The CJEU Takes a Strict Approach on Privacy
and Data Protection, Particularly When Balancing with Other
Fundamental Rights, and with the Objective of Security..... 222
5.10.1 The Strict Approach of the CJEU................... 222
5.10.2 Privacy and Data Protection Have a Huge Impact
on Human Dignity and Effective Protection
is Essential in a Democratic Society Which
Is Subject to the Rule of Law.................... 224
5.10.3 Introduction of the Following Sections............ 224
5.11 Case Law of the US Supreme Court: Balancing
with Free Speech and Security.............................. 225
5.12 Article 11 Charter on Freedom of Expression
and Information: An Intensified Link with Privacy
and Data Protection.......................................... 228
5.12.1 An Intensifying Link: Three Reasons
and Four Concepts.................................. 229
5.12.2 Balancing Privacy and Freedom of Expression,
in Light of Google Spain and Google Inc.......... 230
5.13 Google Spain and Google Inc. Restores a Balance,
but Raises Questions of Legitimacy.......................... 232
Contents
XVII
5.13.1 The CJEU No Longer Takes
a Deferential Approach.............................. 234
5.13.2 Democratic Legitimacy Is Not
Necessarily Guaranteed.............................. 234
5.14 Article 42 Charter on the Right of Access to Documents:
A Strict Scrutiny but Not When Balancing with Privacy
and Data Protection........................................... 235
5.14.1 Access to Documents as a Promotor
of Transparency and Good Governance................. 236
5.14.2 Balancing Privacy and Transparency,
in the Light of Bavarian Lager.................... 238
5.15 Article 17 Charter on the Right to Property
and Intellectual Property: Do These Rights Represent
Essential Values in a Democratic Society?..................... 239
5.15.1 Intellectual Property Becomes Complicated
in the Information Society and Copyright
Is the Example of a Right Difficult to Enforce.... 241
5.15.2 Does the Right to Property Represent Human
Dignity in the Same Way as Privacy
and Data Protection?................................ 243
5.16 A Strict Review of Measures Aiming at a High Level
of Security with an Impact on Privacy and Data Protection .... 244
5.16.1 Privacy and Security: A Trade-Off................... 244
5.16.2 The Case Law of the ECtHR Helps
Understanding Privacy, in Its Relation to Security .. . 245
5.17 The Contribution of the CJEU, with a Focus
on Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger.................... 247
5.17.1 Indiscriminate Retention of Data May
Be Appropriate, but Remains Disproportionate...... 247
5.17.2 A New Dimension to the Relation
Between Security and Privacy After Digital Rights
Ireland and Seitlinger? Four Considerations......... 249
5.18 The CJEU Also Promotes Integration and Acts
as an Umpire Where Other Public Interests or Other
Governmental Actors Have an Impact on the Exercise
of Article 16(1) TFEU......................................... 251
5.18.1 Market Integration: An Additional Interest
to Be Taken into Account by the CJEU................ 252
5.18.2 The CJEU as an Umpire Between Different
Powers: Precise Answers by the CJEU Are Required,
Where the CJEU Adjudicates on Article 16 TFEU
and Relating Competences............................ 254
5.19 Conclusions................................................... 255
References......................................................... 259
xviii Contents
6 Understanding the Scope and Limits of the EU Legislator’s
Contribution to the Mandate Under Article 16 TFEU................. 263
6.1 Introduction................................................. 263
6.2 A General Design of the Legislator s Contribution:
What Needs to Be Done?..................................... 264
6.2.1 The Scope of the Mandate: Article 16(2) TFEU
Contains a Duty to Adopt EU Legislation........... 265
6.2.2 The Mandate of the EU Legislator Has Two
Remarkable Features................................. 267
6.2.3 What About the Competence of the Member
States?............................................. 268
6.2.4 All in All, the EU Legislator Operates
in a Complex Reality................................ 269
6.3 The EU Legislator’s Institutional Role, Institutional
Balance and the Contributions of the European Parliament,
the Council and the Commission............................... 270
6.3.1 There Is One EU Legislator, But Composed
of Three Institutions............................... 271
6.3.2 The European Parliament as a Supporter
of Strong Privacy and Data Protection............... 272
6.3.3 The Council of the European Union
Representing National Concerns.................... . 274
6.3.4 The European Commission, Committed
to Integration...................................... 275
6.4 Involving Other Stakeholders: Member States,
Private Sector and Civil Society............................. 276
6.4.1 Involvement of Actors Within the Member
States Takes Various Forms.......................... 277
6.4.2 Involvement of the Private Sector
and Civil Society................................... 278
6.4.3 What Do We Learn, in Relation to Tasks,
Limitations, Legitimacy and Effectiveness?.......... 278
6.5 A Comparison with the Similar, but Not Equal Mandate
of the EU Legislator Under Articles 18 and 19 TFEU
on Equal Treatment and Non-discrimination................... 279
6.6 Elements of Privacy and Data Protection Where Member
States Should Exercise Competence: Five Categories........... 281
6.7 The EU Legislator’s Mandate and Its Interfaces
with Competences of the EU and the Member States
in Related Areas............................................ 284
6.7.1 Freedom of Expression and Information:
An Area Where the EU Only Has Limited
Competence, But Where Developments
in the Information Society Have a Big Effect...... 285
Contents
xix
6.7.2 Open Data and the Interface Between Transparency
and Data Protection................................ 287
6.7.3 Legislative Measures for Internet Monitoring
with the Aim of Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights 288
6.8 Security: An Area Where the EU and the Member
States Have Significant Competence............................ 289
6.9 Synergies with Public Interests Relating to the Internal
Market: The Economic Dimension of Privacy
and Data Protection........................................... 292
6.9.1 Not Conflicting, But Interfacing
and Creating Synergies............................... 293
6.9.2 Synergies Between Privacy and Data Protection
and Economic Interests............................... 295
6.10 Two Illustrations for Synergies: The Legal Frameworks
for Electronic Communications and Consumer Protection....... 296
6.10.1 The Legal Framework for Electronic
Communications Makes Governments
Responsible for Network Governance................... 297
6.10.2 Consumer Protection.................................. 299
6.11 Competition Law, a Specific Challenge
for Creating Synergies........................................ 302
6.12 Privacy Rules in the US: An Introduction
to the Importance of Multi-stakeholder Solutions.............. 306
6.12.1 General Features of Privacy Legislation in the US . . . 306
6.12.2 US Privacy Legislation Has a Limited Scope......... 307
6.12.3 Non-legislative Instruments in the US,
a Key Element in Consumer Privacy.................... 309
6.12.4 The Fair Information Practice Principles,
Substantive Standards of Protection Comparable
to the Principles in the EU.......................... 310
6.13 Effectiveness and Conditions for Good Legislation:
Engaging the Private Sector. ................................. 311
6.13.1 Introductory Remarks on Engaging
with the Private Sector.............................. 312
6.13.2 Multi-stakeholder Solutions or Multi-level
Governance........................................... 313
6.14 Accountability as an Overarching Solution for Delivering
Privacy and Data Protection................................... 314
6.15 Conclusions................................................... 319
References............................................................ 322
XX
Contents
7 Understanding the Role of Independent, Effective
and Accountable DPAs: New Branches of Government
in Between the Union and the Member States........................ 325
7.1 Introduction............................................... 325
7.2 The General Design of the DPAs: Expert Bodies
with Constitutional Status and with Importance
in the Information Society................................. 327
7.2.1 The Embedding of the Role of DPAs
in Primary Law Gives Them Constitutional Status .. . 327
7.2.2 Information Society................................ 329
7.3 The Institutional Background: Six Reasons
for the Existence of DPAs.................................. 330
7.3.1 The History of DPAs in the EU...................... 330
7.3.2 Six Reasons Behind Their Existence................. 330
7.4 The Competences of DPAs: A Variety of Roles................ 333
7.4.1 The First Limitation: Article 16(2) TFEU
and Article 8(3) Charter Are Imprecise,
But Privacy and Data Protection Are Meant
in a Wide Sense................................... 333
7.4.2 The Second Limitation: Ensuring Control
of Compliance Is Not Limited to Enforcement
Strictu Sensu..................................... 334
7.4.3 The Third Limitation: The Remedy
Before a DPA Is Not Exclusive..................... 335
7.4.4 Further Tasks of DPAs: The Attribution
of Powers Must Be Sufficient to Ensure Control.... 336
7.4.5 A Variety of Roles Raising Questions.............. 337
7.5 Enforcement in the US: An Alternative System
with a Strong Role for the FTC in Consumer Privacy......... 339
7.6 The DPAs as a New Branch of Government:
Non-majoritarian Expert Bodies, Different
But Similar to EU Agencies................................. 341
7.6.1 Independent DPAs as New Branches
of Government, to Be Distinguished
from Autonomous Agencies........................... 341
7.6.2 The Example of Electronic Communications:
Two Main Differences Between the Regulatory
Authorities and DPAs............................... 342
7.6.3 DPAs: Two Main Similarities with Other
Non-majoritarian Expert Bodies..................... 344
7.7 General Theory on Expert Bodies: The Rise
of the Unelected............................................ 346
7.7.1 Are Expert Bodies a New Branch
of Government?..................................... 347
Contents
xxi
7.7.2 DPAs Are a New Branch of Government:
Towards Good Governance........................... 351
7.8 EU Agencies and DPAs Are Expert Bodies
with a Hybrid Position in Between the EU
and National Levels........................................ 352
7.9 Independence of DPAs Under the Case Law
of the CJEU: A Strong Requirement........................ 354
7.9.1 The Meaning of Acting with Complete
Independence: No External Influence Allowed..... 355
7.9.2 The Relation Between the Principle of Democracy
and the Broad Notion of Independence............ 357
7.9.3 Four Observations Based on This Case Law........ 357
7.10 Independence of DPAs: An Analysis........................ 360
7.10.1 Different Degrees of Independence
Under EU Law, Parallels with the ECB
and with Courts................................... 360
7.10.2 High Degree of Independence for DPAs,
Confirming Their Status as New Branch
of Government..................................... 362
7.10.3 The Appointment of Members of a DPA:
A Critical Factor Potentially Influencing
Independence...................................... 363
7.10.4 The DPAs Have an Obligation to Safeguard
Their Independence, Under the Principle
of Democracy.................................... 364
7.10.5 Independence in Relation to Effectiveness
and Accountability................................ 365
7.11 Effectiveness of DPAs: A Presumed Lack of Effectiveness
and the Struggle for Resources............................. 366
7.11.1 The Presumed Lack of Effectiveness of DPAs...... 367
7.11.2 Resources of DPAs................................. 368
7.12 Effective Powers of DPAs, Proximity and the Developing
Information Society........................................ 370
7.12.1 Member States Must Ensure Effective Powers...... 370
7.12.2 Proximity of DPAs Enhancing Effectiveness......... 371
7.12.3 Effective DPAs in a Developing
Information Society............................... 372
7.13 DPAs Are Accountable to the Judiciary
and Not Totally Free from Parliamentary Influence.......... 374
7.13.1 Judicial Accountability as Compensation
for the Loss of Full Parliamentary Control........ 375
7.14 Democratic Accountability: Independence Should
Not Mean That Expert Bodies Act in a Non-controllable
and Arbitrary Manner....................................... 377
xxii Contents
7.14.1 The Wider Context of Accountability of Public
Bodies: Three Perspectives.......................... 378
7.14.2 Instruments for Democratic Accountability:
Explaining and Justifying Conduct................... 380
7.15 Conclusions and a Model for Good Governance
by DPAs..................................................... 381
References.......................................................... 385
8 Understanding the Role of Cooperation Mechanisms
of DPAs: Towards a Layered Model of Horizontal
Cooperation Between DPAs, a Structured Network
of DPAs and a European DPA............................................. 389
8.1 Introduction................................................. 390
8.2 A General Design of DPAs Cooperating with Each
Other and in Composite Administrations
or Trans-governmental Networks............................... 390
8.2.1 DPAs Operating in Multiple Jurisdictions:
A Challenge to Reconcile Independence,
Effectiveness and Accountability,
as Illustrated by the GDPR.......................... 393
8.3 Cross-Border Enforcement and Mutual Cooperation
Between DPAs: The State of Play.............................. 395
8.3.1 The EU -Wide Component of Control
by National DPAs and the Task of the Member
States to Secure the Effectiveness
and Uniformity of EU Law............................ 395
8.3.2 The State of Play in Data Protection Law.......... 395
8.3.3 Three Types of Enforcement Cooperation
of DPAs............................................. 396
8.4 Institutional Arrangements: Article 29 Working Party
and Other Mechanisms for Institutional Cooperation
Between DPAs................................................. 398
8.4.1 Other Mechanisms for Institutional
Cooperation, Mainly in the Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice................................ 400
8.4.2 The European Data Protection Supervisor............. 402
8.5 Two Main Novelties in the GDPR: A One-Stop
Shop Mechanism and a Consistency Mechanism................... 403
8.5.1 A One-Stop Shop Mechanism with a Lead
Supervisory Authority Cooperating with Its Peers. . . . 403
8.5.2 A Consistency Mechanism, but Diverging
Views on Its Rationale.............................. 405
8.5.3 From the Citizens’ Perspective: The Rationale
Behind a Consistency Mechanism Is Not Clear..... 407
Contents
xxm
8 6 Experience in a Related Area: Governance in Electronic
Communications Through a Network of Authorities
with a Task for BEREC to Ensure Consistent Application........... 408
8.6.1 Conditions for Effective Cooperation Inspired
by the Parallel with Cooperation
in EU Competition Law............................... 412
8.7 Cooperation Between DPAs in a Composite
Administration, Against the Background of Developing
EU Administrative Law........................................ 413
8.7.1 Administrative Cooperation Under EU Law
as a Matter of Common Interest................... 413
8.7.2 Material Aspects of the Composite Administration:
Mutual Cooperation and Mutual Trust................. 415
8.7.3 Procedural Standards Applied in the Composite
Administration Should Ensure Accountability......... 417
8.7.4 Fragmentation of Areas of Law as a Further
Complication, also in View of the Special
Status of DPAs...................................... 419
8.8 Three Models to Organise Cooperation Between DPAs,
Against the Background of the GDPR........................ 419
8.8.1 Introduction of the Three Models of Cooperation .... 420
8.9 The First Cooperation Layer: Horizontal Cooperation
Between DPAs................................................. 421
8.9.1 The Essence of Horizontal Cooperation............... 421
8.9.2 Developments Towards a Closer Regime
for Horizontal Cooperation with Precisely
Formulated Rules.................................... 422
8.9.3 Procedural Guarantees as Compensation
for Democratic Accountability....................... 424
8.9.4 How to Ensure That DPAs Give Sufficient Priority
to Horizontal Cooperation........................... 425
8.10 The Second Cooperation Layer: A Structured Network
of DPAs, Taking the Article 29 Working Party
as an Inspiration to Move Ahead.............................. 425
8.10.1 Development Towards a Closer Structured
Network of DPAs..................................... 426
8.10.2 The Relation Between the Duties and Powers
of a Structured Network and the Requirements
for Composition and Decision-Making Structures . . . 427
8.10.3 Composition of Structured Networks with Senior
Representatives of DPAs and Consensual
Decision-Making Enhances Legitimacy................. 428
8.10.4 The Role of the Commission in the Structured
Network: How to Combine Two Contradicting
Demands............................................. 430
XXIV
Contents
8.10.5 Procedural Guarantees.............................. 432
8.11 The Third Layer Where Independence Must
Be Ensured: Cooperation Within a European DPA............... 432
8.11.1 The Essence of Cooperation Within
a European DPA..................................... 432
8.11.2 Towards a Closer Cooperation Within
a European DPA..................................... 434
8.11.3 And the Role of the Commission?.................. 436
8.11.4 Procedural Guarantees.............................. 436
8.11.5 Further Conditions................................. 437
8.12 Cooperation Between DPAs: Ensuring Independence,
Effectiveness and Accountability of DPAs
and the Cooperation Mechanisms, a Final Assessment
and a Proposal.............................................. 438
8.12.1 The Layered Structure of Cooperation
Mechanisms Should Not Compromise
the Independence of DPAs........................... 438
8.12.2 The Layered Structure Should Contain Incentives
for Effective Protection and Should Not Result
in an Incomplete - or Extremely Complex - System
of Remedies....................................... 438
8.12.3 Democratic Accountability: The European
Parliament Has a Role to Play...................... 439
8.12.4 Judicial Accountability: Effective Redress
Mechanisms, Not Necessarily Proximity.............. 440
8.12.5 The Final Assessment and a Proposal ............... 441
8.13 Conclusions................................................. 443
References....................................................... 447
9 Understanding the EU Mandate Under Article 16 TFEU
in the External Domain: Towards a Mix of Unilateral,
Bilateral and Multilateral Strategies............................ 449
9.1 Introduction................................................ 449
9.2 A General Design of EU Data Protection on a Global
Internet and the Relationship with Third Countries
and International Organisations........................... 450
9.2.1 Externally, the EU Operates in a Pluralist
Legal Context...................................... 452
9.3 The Institutional Component of EU Privacy and Data
Protection in the External Domain, Focusing
on the DPAs and Their Cooperation........................... 453
9.3.1 A Specific Issue: The Representation of the EU
in the International Context and the Role
of Cooperating DPAs................................ 454
Contents
xxv
9 4 The EU and Third Countries, Particularly the US:
A Difference in Approach...................................... 455
9.4.1 The Background: The US and the Fundamental
Rights Protection of EU Residents.................... 458
9.4.2 Complexities of Dealing with Other
Third Countries That Have Different Values........... 459
9.5 Two of the Most Relevant International Organisations:
The United Nations Do Not Play a Prominent Role
and the OECD Underlines the Free Flow of Information.......... 460
9.5.1 The United Nations: Should They Play
a More Prominent Role?................................. 460
9.5.2 The OECD and Its Revised Privacy Guidelines:
Privacy and Free Flow of Information
on Equal Footing....................................... 462
9.6 The Closest Ally, the Council of Europe: The Inspiration
for EU Privacy and Data Protection,
but Institutionally Difficult................................... 464
9.7 A Pluralist Legal Context in the External Domain:
The Relation Between EU Law and International Law............. 466
9.7.1 International Competence of the EU:
Similar but Not Equal to a State..................... 467
9.7.2 Division of Powers Within the EU:
Implied Powers and Exclusive Competence ............... 468
9.7.3 The Charter Is Silent on Territorial Application..... 470
9.8 Primacy of International Law, Subject to the Specific
Characteristics and the Autonomy of EU Law.................... 471
9.8.1 Legal Effect of International Law
Within the EU Legal Order and the Respect
of EU Fundamental Rights in the Kadi Case Law.... 472
9.9 Jurisdictional Issues: Public International Law
and the Internet................................................. 473
9.9.1 EU Jurisdiction Under Public International
Law: A Wide Power to Prescribe......................... 474
9.9.2 The Respect of Territorial Sovereign Rights:
Overlapping Jurisdictions in Cyberspace
but a Wide Discretion for the EU Legislator............ 476
9.10 Jurisdiction Should Be Based on a Meaningful Link
with the Protection of Individuals in the EU:
The Effect of an Act on the Internet on Individuals
Residing in a Jurisdiction. ....................................... 478
9.11 Articles 3(5) and 21 TEU as the Starting Point
for EU Action on the International Scene in Privacy
and Data Protection................................................ 482
9.11.1 Introductory Remarks..................................... 482
9.11.2 Strategies for the EU in the International Domain. . . . 484
xxvi Contents
9.12 Unilateral Strategy: A Potentially Successful Approach........ 485
9.13 Bilateral Strategy: Joining Forces with Like-Minded
Jurisdictions Such as the US.................................. 487
9.14 Multilateral Strategy: Towards Global Protection
in the Framework of the UN.................................... 490
9.14.1 However, There Are Incentives for the EU
to Pursue the Multilateral Strategy................... 492
9.15 The Meaning of the Three Strategies for the CJEU:
Google Spain as an Illustration of the Unilateral Strategy
Under Article 16 TFEU........................................... 493
9.15.1 How Would the CJEU Deal with Bilateral
and Multilateral Strategies?.......................... 496
9.16 The Meaning of the Three Strategies for the EU Legislator:
Giving Wide External Effect with the Unilateral Strategy
as a Composing Element.......................................... 497
9.16.1 The EU Legislator Gives Wide External Effect:
The Unilateral Strategy Plays a Key Role............ 497
9.16.2 The Regime of Data Transfers: A Typical
Example of a Unilateral Strategy...................... 498
9.16.3 Article 48 of the GDPR, a Unilateral Solution
for a Conflict of Law................................. 499
9.16.4 The Bilateral and Multilateral Strategies:
External Action by the EU Legislator on Privacy
and Data Protection as a Promising Avenue,
Not Necessarily Harmonising the Level
of Protection......................................... 500
9.17 The Meaning of the Three Strategies for the DPAs
and the Cooperation Between Them: Extending
Cooperation to Authorities in Third Countries................. . 501
9.17.1 Regulators and External Action: The Basis
Is a Unilateral Strategy, Ensuring the Control
of EU Law........................................... 501
9.17.2 The Cooperation Between DPAs and Regulatory
Agencies in Third Countries as an Exponent
of the Bilateral and Multilateral Strategy............ 502
9.18 Conclusions..................................................... 504
References............................................................. 508
10 Making Article 16 TFEU Work: Analysis and Conclusions............. 511
10.1 Introduction.................................................... 511
10.2 General Design of Article 16 TFEU: Recalling
the Main Challenges and the Outline of the Governance
Under This Provision............................................ 513
Contents
xxvii
10.2.1 The Values of Privacy and Data Protection
and the Qualitative Changes in the Information
Society.......................................... 513
10.2.2 Article 16 TFEU as an Adequate Mandate
Guaranteeing the Privacy and Data Protection
of EU Citizens on the Internet:
The Stakes Are High ............................. 514
10.2.3 The Governance Model Under Article 16 TFEU...... 516
10.3 The Main Components for Analysis................. ....... 517
10.3.1 The First Component: Article 16 TFEU Defines
a Broad Mandate.................................. 517
10.3.2 The Second Component: Constitutional
Safeguards Under EU Law.......................... 518
10.3.3 The Third Component: Legitimacy as a Factor
for Success...................................... 519
10.3.4 The Fourth Component: Effectiveness
as a Factor for Success.......................... 520
10.4 The Contribution of Article 16 TFEU to Legitimate
and Effective Privacy and Data Protection on the Internet:
An Appropriate Mandate Is Provided...................... 520
10.4.1 Article 16 TFEU Brings Privacy
and Data Protection by Definition
Within the Scope of EU Law and Makes Ambitious
Approaches Possible (The First Component)........ 520
10.4.2 The Constitutional Safeguards Under EU Law:
The Member States Play and Should Play
an Important Role (The Second Component)......... 521
10.4.3 Legitimacy as a Factor for Success for EU
Action (The Third Component)..................... 522
10.4.4 Effectiveness as a Factor for Success for EU
Action (The Fourth Component).................... 523
10.4.5 Final Recommendation............................ 524
10.5 The CJEU Interprets the Law in Cases Brought Before It
and Acts as Constitutional Court........................ 525
10.5.1 Article 16(1) TFEU and the Guidance in Final
Instance by the CJEU (The First Component)...... 525
10.5.2 The Constitutional Safeguards Under EU Law:
A Judiciary Explaining the Boundaries
with Other Mandates in an Information Society
(The Second Component)........................... 526
10.5.3 Legitimacy as a Factor for Success of the CJEU
(The Third Component)............................ 529
10.5.4 Effectiveness as a Factor for Success of the CJEU
(The Fourth Component)........................... 530
10.5.5 Final Recommendation............................. 531
Contents
xxviii
10.6 The European Parliament and the Council Lay
Down the Rules, Whilst Respecting the Role
of the Member States Under Article 16(2) TFEU............ 531
10.6.1 Article 16(2) TFEU and the Exhaustive Nature
of the EU Legislator’s Task
(The First Component)........................... 531
10.6.2 The Constitutional Safeguards Under EU Law:
A Regulation as the Appropriate Instrument
and a Legislator Confronted with interfaces
with Other Competences (The Second Component) . . 532
10.6.3 Legitimacy as a Factor for Success
of the EU Legislator (The Third Component)...... 533
10.6.4 Effectiveness as a Factor for Success
of the EU Legislator (The Fourth Component)..... 535
10.6.5 Final Recommendation............................. 537
10.7 Independent DPAs Exercise Control as Expert Bodies
with Full Independence, but Are Not Exempted
from Democratic Accountability ......................... 537
10.7.1 Article 16(2) TFEU and the Variety
of Roles of the DPAs (The First Component)...... 537
10.7.2 The Constitutional Safeguards Under EU Law:
DPAs as Non-majoritarian Expert Bodies
(The Second Component)........................... 538
10.7.3 Legitimacy as a Factor for Success
for the DPAs (The Third Component).............. 539
10.7.4 Effectiveness as a Factor for Success
for the DPAs (The Fourth Component)............ 541
10.7.5 Final Recommendation............................ 542
10.8 Cooperation as an Element of Control, with a Layered
Structure of Cooperation Mechanisms....................... 543
10.8.1 Article 16(2) TFEU and the Strengthened
Cooperation Mechanisms Under the GDPR
(The First Component)............................ 543
10.8.2 The Constitutional Safeguards Under EU Law:
Cooperation Mechanisms of DPAs, Legal
Requirements for Cooperation and a Cooperation
Structure (The Second Component)................. 544
10.8.3 Legitimacy as a Factor for Success
for Cooperation Mechanisms
(The Third Component)............................ 546
10.8.4 Effectiveness as a Factor for Success
for Cooperation Mechanisms
(The Fourth Component)........................... 547
10.8.5 Final Recommendation.............................. 548
Contents
xxix
]0 9 External EU Action on the Internet: Solving
Conflicting Jurisdictional Claims and Substantive Divergences,
with a Powerful EU in the International Domain.............. 549
10.9.1 Article 16 TFEU and the Claim of Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (The First Component).................. 549
10.9.2 The Constitutional Safeguards Under EU Law
Where the EU Acts as an Organisation Sui Generis
in the External Domain (The Second Component) . . . 549
10.9.3 Legitimacy as a Factor for Success
for the EU Acting in the External Domain
(The Third Component)............................... 551
10.9.4 Effectiveness as a Factor for Success
for the EU Acting in the External Domain
(The Fourth Component).............................. 552
10.9.5 Final Recommendation................................ 554
10.10 The Prospect of a GDPR....................................... 554
10.10.1 The Legislative Process............................. 555
10.10.2 General Remarks on the GDPR,
on Effectiveness and Legitimacy..................... 556
10.10.3 Observations on the Ambitions of the GDPR
to Ensure a Successful Exercise of the Roles
Under Article 16 TFEU............................... 558
10.11 Final Conclusions............................................ 560
Matrix.............................................................. 562
References.......................................................... 563
Annex: Consulted Documents............................................... 565
Legislation and Proposed Legislation................................ 565
Case Law............................................................ 569
Court of Justice of the European Union............................ 569
General Court/Court of First Instance........................... 573
European Court of Human Rights...................................... 573
Permanent Court of International Justice.......................... 574
US Supreme Court ................................................. 574
Other National Courts........................................... 574
Policy Documents.................................................... 575
Other References.................................................... 583
This book examines the role ot the EU in ensuring privacy and data protection on the
internet. It describes and demonstrates the importance of privacy and data protection
for our democracies and how the enjoyment of these rights is challenged by, particularly,
big data and mass surveillance.
The book takes the perspective of the EU mandate under Article 16 TFEU. It analyses
the contributions ot the specific actors and roles within the EU framework: the judiciary,
the EU legislator, the independent supervisory authorities, the cooperation mechanisms
of these authorities, as well as the EU as actor in the external domain.
Article 16 TFEU enables the Court ot the Justice of the EU to play its role as constitutional
court and to set high standards for fundamental rights protection. It obliges the
European Parliament and the Council to laydown legislation that encompasses all
processing of personal data. It confirms control by independent supervisory authorities
as an essential element of data protection and it gives the EU a strong mandate to act
in the global arena.
The analysis shows that EU powers can be successfully used in a legitimate and effective
manner and that this subject could be a success story for the EU, in times of widespread
euroskepsis. It demonstrates that the Member States remain important players in
ensuring privacy and data protection. In order to be a success story, the key stakeholders
should be prepared to go the extra mile, so it is argued in the book.
The book is based on academic research for which the author received a double
doctorate at the University of Amsterdam and the Vrije Universiteit Brussels. It builds
on a long inside experience within the European institutions, as well as within the
community of data protection and data protection authorities.
It is a must read in a time where the setting of EU privacy and data protection is
changing dramatically, not only as a result of the rapidly evolving information society,
but also because ot important legal developments such as the entry into force of the
General Data Protection Regulation.
This book will appeal to all those who are in some way involved in making this
regulation work. It will also appeal to people interested in the institutional framework
of the European Union and in the role of the Union of promoting fundamental rights,
also in the wider world.
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Hijmans, Hielke |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1047849518 |
| author_facet | Hijmans, Hielke |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Hijmans, Hielke |
| author_variant | h h hh |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV043866691 |
| classification_rvk | PZ 4600 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)965604935 (DE-599)BSZ477933483 |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| format | Thesis Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02282nam a2200445 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV043866691</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20170224 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">161108s2016 m||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9783319340890</subfield><subfield code="9">978-3-319-34089-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9783319340906</subfield><subfield code="9">978-3-319-34090-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)965604935</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BSZ477933483</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-739</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-M382</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-384</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PZ 4600</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)141181:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hijmans, Hielke</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1047849518</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="240" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The European Union as a constitutional guardian of internet privacy and data protection</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The European Union as guardian of internet privacy</subfield><subfield code="b">the story of art 16 TFEU</subfield><subfield code="c">Hielke Hijmans</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">[Cham]</subfield><subfield code="b">Springer</subfield><subfield code="c">[2016]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">xxxii, 604 Seiten</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Law, governance and technology series</subfield><subfield code="v">Volume 31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="502" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">Dissertation</subfield><subfield code="c">Universiteit van Amsterdam</subfield><subfield code="d">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="630" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)7619701-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Persönlichkeitsrecht</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4045245-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Internet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4308416-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4113937-9</subfield><subfield code="a">Hochschulschrift</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)7619701-3</subfield><subfield code="D">u</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Persönlichkeitsrecht</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4045245-1</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Internet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4308416-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law, governance and technology series</subfield><subfield code="v">Volume 31</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV037211616</subfield><subfield code="9">31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung UB Passau - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung UB Passau - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Klappentext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-029276665</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Hochschulschrift |
| id | DE-604.BV043866691 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T07:37:10Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9783319340890 9783319340906 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-029276665 |
| oclc_num | 965604935 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-739 DE-M382 DE-384 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-739 DE-M382 DE-384 |
| physical | xxxii, 604 Seiten |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publishDateSearch | 2016 |
| publishDateSort | 2016 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Law, governance and technology series |
| series2 | Law, governance and technology series |
| spelling | Hijmans, Hielke Verfasser (DE-588)1047849518 aut The European Union as a constitutional guardian of internet privacy and data protection The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU Hielke Hijmans [Cham] Springer [2016] xxxii, 604 Seiten txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Law, governance and technology series Volume 31 Dissertation Universiteit van Amsterdam 2016 Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (DE-588)7619701-3 gnd rswk-swf Persönlichkeitsrecht (DE-588)4045245-1 gnd rswk-swf Internet (DE-588)4308416-3 gnd rswk-swf (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (DE-588)7619701-3 u Persönlichkeitsrecht (DE-588)4045245-1 s Internet (DE-588)4308416-3 s DE-604 Law, governance and technology series Volume 31 (DE-604)BV037211616 31 Digitalisierung UB Passau - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung UB Passau - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Klappentext |
| spellingShingle | Hijmans, Hielke The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU Law, governance and technology series Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (DE-588)7619701-3 gnd Persönlichkeitsrecht (DE-588)4045245-1 gnd Internet (DE-588)4308416-3 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)7619701-3 (DE-588)4045245-1 (DE-588)4308416-3 (DE-588)4113937-9 |
| title | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU |
| title_alt | The European Union as a constitutional guardian of internet privacy and data protection |
| title_auth | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU |
| title_exact_search | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU |
| title_full | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU Hielke Hijmans |
| title_fullStr | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU Hielke Hijmans |
| title_full_unstemmed | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 TFEU Hielke Hijmans |
| title_short | The European Union as guardian of internet privacy |
| title_sort | the european union as guardian of internet privacy the story of art 16 tfeu |
| title_sub | the story of art 16 TFEU |
| topic | Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (DE-588)7619701-3 gnd Persönlichkeitsrecht (DE-588)4045245-1 gnd Internet (DE-588)4308416-3 gnd |
| topic_facet | Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union Persönlichkeitsrecht Internet Hochschulschrift |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029276665&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV037211616 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hijmanshielke theeuropeanunionasaconstitutionalguardianofinternetprivacyanddataprotection AT hijmanshielke theeuropeanunionasguardianofinternetprivacythestoryofart16tfeu |