nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union at the Portuguese Constitutional Court: The Data Retention Cases

verfasst von : Francisco Pereira Coutinho

Erschienen in: On the Relation between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and National Fundamental Rights

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The usually placid waters of the Portuguese legal order were shaken in mid-April 2022 by a judicial ruling with the potential to trigger a tsunami of criminal conviction reversals that is already provoking a backlash in the investigation and repression of serious criminal offences committed online. Several provisions of the so-called “Data Retention Law”, originally adopted to transpose the contentious “Data Retention Directive”, were declared unconstitutional by the Portuguese Constitutional Court (PCC), as they breach the rights to privacy, to data protection and to an effective legal remedy, as interpreted in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The ruling caused shockwaves across the political spectrum and triggered a constitutional crisis (of sorts), with both the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister hinting on media outlets at the need for a mooted constitutional amendment in a field pre-empted by EU law. The Attorney-General went as far as to request the annulment of the ruling, an unprecedented claim promptly dismissed by the PCC on procedural and material grounds.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Constitutional Adjudication. The Italian Perspective

Nächstes Kapitel Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Courts of Lithuania

Caixinha (2022).

Law 32/2008.

Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19.

Mota Delgado (2022) and Violante (2022).

Carmo (2022a).

Carmo (2022b).

Gustavo (2022).

Decision 382/2022, judgment of 13 May 2022, Case 828/19.

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.

European Data Protection Supervisor (2010).

CJEU, judgment of 15 July 1964, Costa v ENEL, C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66, para. 593.

CJEU, judgment of 4 December 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality, C-378/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:979, para. 50.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 65–81.

CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Fransson, C-617/10, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para. 20–21.

Guerra and Calvão (2015), pp. 79–80; Silva Ramalho and Duarte Coimbra (2015), pp. 1038–1039; Silveira and Freitas (2017), pp. 52–53; Pereira Coutinho and Piçarra (2019), p. 616. Metadata are “data about data”. In the context of electronic communications services in the EU, they refer to data generated by natural persons (“data subjects”) through the use of landline phones, fax, mobile phones and the internet, namely traffic data—i.e. “data processed for the purpose of the conveyance of a communication on an electronic communications network or for the billing thereof”—and location data—i.e., “data processed in an electronic communications network, indicating the geographic position of the terminal equipment of a user of a publicly available electronic communications service” [Art. 2(b)(c) of the “E-privacy Directive” (Directive 2002/58/EC)]. They include, inter alia, calling telephone numbers, numbers called, as well as web (URL), IP and email addresses. Metadata are personal data whenever they can be used to trace and identify persons involved in electronic communications. If that is the case, they can only be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes (purpose limitation principle) (Art. 5 para. 1 lit. b of the of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)), and must be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary (storage limitation principle) (Art. 5 para. 1 lit. e GDPR). Except when technically necessary for the conveyance of a communication, their storage and access by providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks (“service providers”) is in principle prohibited without the consent of the data subjects concerned (confidentiality of communications principle) (Art. 5 of the E-privacy Directive). Retention of traffic data is allowed solely for billing (i.e. for the benefit of the data subject/consumer) or for marketing purposes (when the data subject has given consent) (Art. 6 of the E-privacy Directive), while location data “may only be processed when they are made anonymous, or with the consent of the users or subscribers (of electronic communication systems) to the extent and for the duration necessary for the provision of a value-added service” (Art. 9 of the E-privacy Directive). In other words, unless consent is given by the data subject, metadata must be erased or anonymised by service providers after they are no longer needed for interconnection or billing purposes (CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 86). However, in order to support the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious criminal offences, Art. 4 and 6 of the Data Retention Law (Law 32/2008) implemented the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), adopted in the aftermath of the Madrid (2004) and London (2005) terrorists attacks (European Council 2004, p. 4), by obliging service providers to collect and store for one year data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication and its destination, to identify the date, time, duration and type of a communication, to identify the users’ communication equipment, and to establish the location of mobile communication equipment.

Council of the European Union (2002), pp. 20–22.

See Art. 12 of the Cybercrime Law (Law 109/2009), which implements Art. 16 of the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe, ETS 105 (entry into force 1 July 2004). The Portuguese Government signed the Convention on 23 November 2001, but only approved a Draft Bill on its object on 14 May 2009.

Council of the European Union (2006), p. 4.

Draft Bill 161/X/3, approved by the Council of Ministers on 6 September 2007.

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, para. 50.

Filipe (2008), pp. 22–23.

Silveira (2008), pp. 19–20.

Portela and Cruz-Cunha (2010), pp. 3 and 10.

Council of the European Union (2017), p. 10.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017b).

Ombudsman (2019).

Art. 4 of Law 79/2021, which amends Art. 2 lit. g of Law 32/2008.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 112.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 107.

The Court of Justice addressed this issue directly in CJEU, judgment of 5 April 2020, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258, para. 47: “[N]ational legislation ensuring full respect for the conditions established by the case-law interpreting Directive 2002/58 as regards access to retained data cannot, by its very nature, be capable of either limiting or even remedying the serious interference, which results from the general retention of those data provided for under that national legislation, with the rights guaranteed by Article 5 and 6 of that directive and by the fundamental rights to which those articles give specific effect”.

Art. 3 para. 2 and Art. 9 of Law 32/2008.

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, para. 68, and CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 122–3. This was not a “minor issue” (Silva Ramalho and Duarte Coimbra 2015, p. 1038) given that retained data could even have been transferred to a third country (the United States of America) where the legislation authorises public authorities to have unrestricted access to those data while not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to them, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data (CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2015, Schrems I, C-362/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, para. 93–95).

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 121.

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, para. 67, and CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 122.

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, para. 62.

CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2020, Privacy International, C-623/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:790, para. 68. This IT application was still not being used in 2017 (Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados 2017b, p. 9).

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, para. 63.

Art. 3 of Law 58/2019.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 123.

Art. 55 to 59 GDPR.

Art. 60–62, 63–67, and 68 para. 3 GDPR.

Hijmans (2016), pp. 309–311; Pereira Coutinho (2020), pp. 16–17.

Art. 52 para. 1 and 2 GDPR.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2007a), p. 3; Silveira (2008), pp. 20–21.

CJEU, judgment of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights Ireland, C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, para. 62.

Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party (2005), p. 6.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2007b), pp. 3–4.

Pinho (2018), pp. 169–170.

Pinho (2018), p. 169.

Cybercrime Office (2016), p. 7. In CJEU, judgment of 2 March 2021, Prokuratuur, C-746/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:152, para. 57, the Court of Justice declared that the Estonian public prosecution service could not be considered an “independent administrative body” for the purpose of carrying out the prior review to which access by the competent national authorities to retained data must be subject.

Pinho (2018), p. 171: “[T]he fact that the storage of data for billing purposes […] is not procured for the investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offences means that this processing does not include the safeguards applicable to that specific purpose”.

Cybercrime Office (2022), pp. 2–3.

Pinho (2018), p. 171, and CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2020, Quadrature du Net, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 154.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2015), p. 10.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017a), pp. 20–21.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017b).

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017c), p. 3.

Ombudsman (2019), p. 15.

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2022a).

Service providers were obliged to destroy the database created under the Data Retention Law for the simple reason that the processing of those data was not necessary for compliance with an applicable legal obligation to which they were subject (Art. 6 para. 1 lit. c GDPR). In the absence of any other lawful basis for processing, the storage of data in breach of the principle of lawfulness was liable to be sanctioned. See, however, Silva Ramalho and Duarte Coimbra (2015), p. 1040, who reject such liability, claiming that service providers were not obliged to disapply national law breaching EU law and could thus continue to enforce a law which the authors themselves consider to be in a state of “latency” (Silva Ramalho and Duarte Coimbra 2015, p. 1042).

Ambrósio de Sousa (2022).

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2022a).

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017c).

Claes (2006), p. 108; Schütze (2012), pp. 125–126; CJEU, judgment of 9 March 1978, Simmenthal, C-106/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49, para. 21; CJEU, judgment of 5 October 2010, Elchinov, C-173/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:581, para. 31.

See, among others, Decision 466/2003, judgment of 14 October 2003, Case 125/02, Decision 46/04, judgment of 19 January 2004, Case 885/03, Decision 598/04, judgment of 12 October 2004, Case 685/03, and Decision 569/2016, judgment of 19 October 2016, Case 238/16, which refused to qualify the compatibility between national law and EU primary law as a question of constitutionality subject to review by the PCC, referring to José Manuel Cardoso da Costa (1998), p. 1371: “[T]he incompatibility between provisions of domestic law and (EU law) should not be assimilated to a category or a dogmatic concept whose utilization or application […] would mean withdrawing from ordinary courts the final decision of that question within their jurisdiction”.

Decision 410/17, judgment of 13 July 2017, Case 452/17.

Decision 410/17, judgment of 13 July 2017, Case 452/17, para. 10.

See, regarding users’ civil identity data, CJEU, judgment of 2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C-207/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:788, para. 42: “[I]t is apparent from recital 15 of Directive 2002/58 that traffic data may include, inter alia, the name and address of the person sending a communication or using a connection to carry out a communication. Data relating to […] identity […] can also prove necessary in order to bill for the electronic communications services provided and therefore form part of traffic data as defined in subparagraph (b) of the second paragraph of Article 2 of the directive”), and concerning IP Addresses, CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2020, Quadrature du Net, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 152.

Decision 410/17, judgment of 13 July 2017, Case 452/17, para. 11.

Cybercrime Office (2015), p. 3.

Decision 410/17, judgment of 13 July 2017, Case 452/17, para. 12–14. See also Violante (2021), pp. 183–184.

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, judgment of 28 November 2018, Case 8617/17.8T9LSB-A.L1-3, para. 3.3. and 3.4.

D3 (2017).

Ombudsman (2021).

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 8.1. See also, CJEU, judgment of 22 October 1998, IN.CO.GE, C-10/97 to C-22/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:498, para. 21, and CJEU, judgment of 19 November 2009, Filipiak, C-314/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:719, para. 83.

That was the case of the Belgium Constitutional Court (Popelier and Van de Heyning 2019, p. 1249), the Slovak Constitutional Court (Vikarská and Bobek 2019, p. 868), and the Slovenian Constitutional Court (Bardutzki 2019, p. 714). See also, in general, Paris (2018), pp. 24–25, which argues that constitutional courts should embrace EU law as a yardstick for constitutional review to formally remove from the legal system statutes that compromise the effectiveness of the primacy of EU law, thereby reducing legal uncertainty.

Art. 8 para. 4 of the Portuguese Constitution.

As Teresa Violante (2022), p. 5, accurately remarked, the principle of consistent interpretation allowed the PCC to “link the national standard of protection with the European parameter, leading to a fully congruent standard of fundamental rights protection through the application of the national constitutional provisions”.

Decision 382/2022, judgment of 13 May 2022, Case 828/19, para. 4.

CJEU, judgment of 5 April 2020, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258, para. 128.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 8.2.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 16.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 19.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 17.1–17.4.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 14.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 100, and judgment of 6 October 2020, Quadrature du Net, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 115–119 and 140–141.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 17.4.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 17.3.

By way of comparison, Art. 113 lit. b of the German Law on Telecommunications establishes a 10-week maximum period of retention.

According to CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2020, Quadrature du Net, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 153 and 156, IP addresses “may be used, among other things, to track an Internet user’s complete clickstream and, therefore, his or her entire online activity”, and thus enable a detailed profile of the internet user to be produced.

Decision 268/2022, judgment of 19 April 2022, Case 828/19, para. 18.

CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2020, Schrems II, C-311/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:559, para. 172.

CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2020, Quadrature du Net, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 142.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 100–101.

CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige, C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, para. 99.

Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom, judgment of 25 May 2021, 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, para. 363.

Cole (2014).

CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2015, Schrems I, C-362/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, para. 94.

100

Decision 403/2015, judgment of 27 August 2015, Case 773/15, and Decision 464/2019, judgment of 18 September 2019, Case 26/18.

101

European Parliament (2020), para. 32.

102

Law Proposal 11/XV/1, approved by the Council of Ministers on 26 May 2022.

103

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2022b), para. 47.

104

Morais Fonseca (2022).

105

A parliamentary attempt to reintroduce preventive data retention through the adoption of amendments to the Data Retention Law was quashed by the PCC in Decision 300/2023, judgment of 4 December 2023, Case 1130/2023.

Ambrósio de Sousa F (2022) Nos, Vodafone e Altice garantem cumprimento da lei de metadados. Eco (12 June 2022), available at https://eco.sapo.pt/2022/06/12/vodafone-e-altice-garantem-cumprimento-da-lei-de-metadados/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2005) Opinion 4/2005 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Retention of Data Processed in Connection with the Provision of Public Electronic Communication Services and Amending Directive 2002/58/EC (COM(2005)438 final of 21.09.2005 (21 October 2005), pp 5–6

Bardutzki S (2019) The future mandate of the constitution of Slovenia: a potent tradition under strain. In: Albi A, Bardutzki S (eds) National constitutions in European and global governance: democracy, rights, the rule of law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 687–744CrossRef

Caixinha C (2022) Preso por pornografia de menores libertado ao abrigo dos metadados. Rádio Renascença (10 June 2022) available at https://rr.sapo.pt/noticia/pais/2022/06/10/preso-por-pornografia-de-menores-libertado-ao-abrigo-dos-metadados/287941/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Cardoso da Costa JM (1998) O Tribunal Constitucional português e o Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias. In: Ab uno ad omnes. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 1363–1380

Carmo C (2022a) Marcelo admite alterações à Constituição por causa da lei dos metadados: “O problema é que não há revisões pontuais”. TSF (11 May 2022) available at https://www.tsf.pt/portugal/politica/o-problema-e-que-nao-ha-revisoes-pontuais-marcelo-admite-alterar-constituicao-por-causa-da-lei-dos-metadados-14847184.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Carmo C (2022b) Costa admite revisão constitucional, mas que pode ser “cirúrgica” por causa dos metadados. TSF (11 May 2022) available at https://www.tsf.pt/portugal/politica/costa-admite-revisao-constitucional-mas-que-pode-ser-cirurgica-por-causa-dos-metadados-14847812.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Claes M (2006) The national courts’ mandate in the European constitution. Hart, Oxford

Cole D (2014) We Kill People based on Metadata. New York Review of Books (10 May 2014) available at https://www.nybooks.com/online/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/#:~:text=If%20you%20have%20enough%20metadata,kill%20people%20based%20on%20metadata.%E2%80%9D. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2007a) Opinion 47/07 (29 August)

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2007b) Opinion 38/07 (16 July)

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2015) Opinion 51/2015 (16 June)

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017a) Opinion 24/2017 (18 April)

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017b) Deliberation 641/2017 (9 May)

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2017c) Deliberation 1008/2017 (18 July)

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2022a) CNPD ordena eliminação dos dados das comunicações conservados ao abrigo de norma declara constitutional (9 June 2022). Available at https://www.cnpd.pt/comunicacao-publica/noticias/cnpd-ordena-eliminacao-dos-dados-das-comunicacoes-conservados-ao-abrigo-de-norma-declarada-inconstitucional/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2022b) Opinion 50/2022 (21 June)

Council of the European Union (2002) Answer to questionnaire on traffic data retention. 14107/02 (20 November 2002, Brussels). In: Statewatch 12 (6) (November-December 2002)

Council of the European Union (2006) 2709ème session du Conseil de l’Union européenne (Justice et Affaires Interieures), tenue à Bruxelles, le 21 février 2006. 6598/06 ADD 1 (27 February 2006)

Council of the European Union (2017) Retention of electronic communication data. 6726/1/17 REV 1

Cybercrime Office (Public Prosecution Service) (2015) Retenção de dados de tráfego e Lei n° 32/2008, de 17 de Julho. In: Nota Prática n° 7 (30 December 2015)

Cybercrime Office (Public Prosecution Service) (2016) “Pedido de dados a operadores de comunicações”. In: Nota Prática n° 8 (18 February 2016)

Cybercrime Office (Public Prosecution Service) (2022) Nota Informativa: Retenção de Dados de Tráfego – Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional (17 May 2022)

D3 (2017) Press release: D3 pede à Provedora de Justiça que leve metadados ao Constitucional. (27 November 2017) available at https://direitosdigitais.pt/comunicacao/comunicados/38-d3-pede-a-provedora-de-justica-que-leve-metadados-ao-constitucional. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

European Council (2004) Declaration on Combating Terrorism, Brussels (25 March 2004). Available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/79637.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

European Data Protection Supervisor (2010) “Moment of truth” for the Data Retention Directive: EDPS demands clear evidence of necessity. In: Communique de Presse, EDPS/10/17 (3 December 2010)

European Parliament (2020) Resolution of 26 November 2020 on the situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union - Annual Report for the years 2018 – 2019. 2019/2199(INI)

Filipe A MP (Communist Party) (2008) Diário da Assembleia da República I (31) (5 January 2008), pp 19–26

Guerra C, Calvão F (2015) Anotação. Forum de Proteção de Dados 1 (July 2015), pp 77–80

Gustavo R (2022) Procuradoria pede anulação do acórdão do Constitucional sobre os metadados. E apresentou dois motivos para o fazer. Expresso (9 May 2022). Available at https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-05-09-Procuradoria-pede-anulacao-do-acordao-do-Constitucional-sobre-os-metadados.-E-apresentou-dois-motivos-para-o-fazer-f37c2671. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Hijmans H (2016) The European Union as a constitutional guardian of internet privacy and data protection. University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamCrossRef

Morais Fonseca J (2022) Marcelo vai pedir fiscalização preventiva da nova lei dos metadados ao Tribunal Constitucional. Eco (18 May 2022). Available at https://eco.sapo.pt/2022/05/18/marcelo-vai-pedir-fiscalizacao-preventiva-da-nova-lei-dos-metadados-ao-tribunal-constitucional/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Mota Delgado M (2022) The EU law of a Portuguese institutional crisis: the Data Retention ruling of the Portuguese Constitutional Court. EU Law Live (23 May 2022). Available at https://eulawlive.com/the-eu-law-of-a-portuguese-institutional-crisis-the-data-retention-ruling-of-the-portuguese-constitutional-court-by-miguel-mota-delgado/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Ombudsman (2019) Recommendation 1/B/2019 (22 January)

Ombudsman (2021) Lei n.° 26/2020. Provedora de Justiça requer a fiscalização do Tribunal Constitucional (16 September 2021). Available at https://www.provedor-jus.pt/lei-n-o-26-2020-provedora-de-justica-requer-a-fiscalizacao-do-tribunal-constitucional/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Paris D (2018) Constitutional courts as European Union courts: the current and potential use of EU law as a yardstick for constitutional review. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 24(6):1–30

Pereira Coutinho F (2020) A Independência da Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados. Anuário da Proteção de Dados, pp 9–47

Pereira Coutinho F (2022) Better late than never: Blanket Data Retention Struck Down at Last by the Portuguese Constitutional Court. Diritti Comparati (24 June 2022). Available at https://www.diritticomparati.it/better-late-than-never-blanket-data-retention-struck-down-at-last-by-the-portuguese-constitutional-court/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Pereira Coutinho F (2023) Data Retention in Portugal: Big Brother in (No Longer) Watching. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4216870. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Pereira Coutinho F, Piçarra N (2019) Portugal: the impact of European Integration and the economic crisis on the identity of the constitution. In: Albi A, Bardutzki S (eds) National constitutions in European and global governance: democracy, rights, the rule of law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 591–640CrossRef

Pinho C (2018) Lei de retenção de dados de comunicações eletrónicas: aposentar ou reformar? Revista do Ministério Público 154:167–192

Popelier P, Van de Heyning C (2019) The Belgian Constitution: the efficacy approach to European and global governance. In: Albi A, Bardutzki S (eds) National constitutions in European and global governance: democracy, rights, the rule of law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 1225–1270CrossRef

Portela I, Cruz-Cunha MM (2010) What about the balance between law enforcement and data protection? In: Portela I, Cruz-Cunha MM (eds) Information communication technology law, protection and access rights: global approaches and issues. IGI Global, New York, pp 1–18CrossRef

Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Silva Ramalho D, Duarte Coimbra J (2015) A declaração de invalidade da Diretiva 2006/24/CE: presente e future da regulação sobre conservação de dados de tráfego para fins de investigação, deteção e repressão de crimes graves. O Direito 147(IV):997–1045

Silveira JT (Secretary of State for Justice) (2008) Diário da Assembleia da República I(31) (5 January 2008):19–26

Silveira A, Freitas PM (2017) The recent jurisprudence of the CJEU on personal data retention: implications for criminal investigation in Portugal. UNIO – EU Law J 3(2):45–56CrossRef

Vikarská Z, Bobek M (2019) Slovakia: between euro-optimism and euro-concerns. In: Albi A, Bardutzki S (eds) National constitutions in European and global governance: democracy, rights, the rule of law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 835–886CrossRef

Violante T (2021) Data retention in Portugal. In: Zubik J et al (eds) European constitutional courts towards data retention law. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–188CrossRef

Violante T (2022) How the data retention legislation led to a national constitutional crisis in Portugal. Verfassungsblog (9 June 2022). Available at https://verfassungsblog.de/how-the-data-retention-legislation-led-to-a-national-constitutional-crisis-in-portugal/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Titel: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union at the Portuguese Constitutional Court: The Data Retention Cases
verfasst von: Francisco Pereira Coutinho
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: On the Relation between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and National Fundamental Rights
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-52684-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-52685-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52685-5_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner