Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Welcome to spring and the top five commercial developments in April.
The decision in the Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others case (Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594-12) will have far-reaching implications for data retention and data protection in the EU and further afield.
In this case, the European Court of Justice declared that the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) was invalid. The court’s declaration of invalidity takes effect from the date on which the directive entered into force (ie, on 3 May 2006).
The purpose of the Data Retention Directive was to harmonise member states’ provisions concerning the retention of certain data by telecommunications providers, among others. The directive stated that providers had to retain traffic and location data as well as related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user. However, it did not permit the retention of the content of the communication or of information consulted.
The court held that current collection practices, taken as a whole, may provide very precise information on the private lives of the persons whose data are retained, such as the habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or other movements, activities carried out, social relationships and the social environments frequented. Collecting such information interfered in a serious way with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.
The Court also held that there were insufficient safeguards against the risk of abuse and against any unlawful access and use of data including outside of the EU. The retention of data should genuinely be for reasons such as the fight against serious crime or terrorism. It also found that the provisions relating to data retention periods were unlawful in that it did provide for a sophisticated enough mechanism to determine what time period should apply.
On the date the judgment was handed out, 8 April 2014, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Celilia Malmström,
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234