The law enforcement directive: Conceptual challenges of EU directive 2016/680

M. Leiser; B. Custers

doi:10.21552/edpl/2019/3/10

The law enforcement directive: Conceptual challenges of EU directive 2016/680

M. Leiser, B. Custers

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

© (Publication Year), (publisher Name). All rights reserved.The Law Enforcement Directive (EU Directive 2016/680) has been heralded for its role in building a high level of data protection in criminal law. Data processed for ‘law enforcement purposes’ by ‘competent authorities’ must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality and legality, while ensuring appropriate safeguards in place for data subjects. However, there is ambiguity as to how the LED should work in practice due to several conceptual issues that the LED raises. This paper discusses three conceptual issues: Consent, the categorisation of witnesses, suspects and victims, and the categorisation of facts versus opinions.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	367-378
Journal	European Data Protection Law Review
Volume	5
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/3/10
Publication status	Published - 2019
Externally published	Yes

Funding

Since the processing of criminal law data is beyond the scope of Directive 95/46/EC, there was historically little harmonisation within the EU.22 After the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States, the European Parliament repeatedly requested a legal instrument under the Third Pillar of the European Union, on Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.23 However, little progress was made.24 Only in 2008 did the EU publish Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA on the protection of personal data processing in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.25 This Frame-work Decision was also based on Convention 108 and the DPD principles. National security was beyond the scope of the Framework Decision. The aim of the Framework Decision is, on the one hand, the protection of personal data that are processed for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crimes and the execution of criminal penalties and, on the other hand, the facilitation and simplification of police and judicial cooperation between Member States.

Funders	Funder number
European Commission
EU publish Framework
European Commission
European Parliament

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.21552/edpl/2019/3/10

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{9a9835378cf94872a990e15279c45b16,

title = "The law enforcement directive: Conceptual challenges of EU directive 2016/680",

abstract = "{\textcopyright} (Publication Year), (publisher Name). All rights reserved.The Law Enforcement Directive (EU Directive 2016/680) has been heralded for its role in building a high level of data protection in criminal law. Data processed for {\textquoteleft}law enforcement purposes{\textquoteright} by {\textquoteleft}competent authorities{\textquoteright} must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality and legality, while ensuring appropriate safeguards in place for data subjects. However, there is ambiguity as to how the LED should work in practice due to several conceptual issues that the LED raises. This paper discusses three conceptual issues: Consent, the categorisation of witnesses, suspects and victims, and the categorisation of facts versus opinions.",

author = "M. Leiser and B. Custers",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.21552/edpl/2019/3/10",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "367--378",

journal = "European Data Protection Law Review",

issn = "2364-2831",

publisher = "Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The law enforcement directive

T2 - Conceptual challenges of EU directive 2016/680

AU - Leiser, M.

AU - Custers, B.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - © (Publication Year), (publisher Name). All rights reserved.The Law Enforcement Directive (EU Directive 2016/680) has been heralded for its role in building a high level of data protection in criminal law. Data processed for ‘law enforcement purposes’ by ‘competent authorities’ must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality and legality, while ensuring appropriate safeguards in place for data subjects. However, there is ambiguity as to how the LED should work in practice due to several conceptual issues that the LED raises. This paper discusses three conceptual issues: Consent, the categorisation of witnesses, suspects and victims, and the categorisation of facts versus opinions.

AB - © (Publication Year), (publisher Name). All rights reserved.The Law Enforcement Directive (EU Directive 2016/680) has been heralded for its role in building a high level of data protection in criminal law. Data processed for ‘law enforcement purposes’ by ‘competent authorities’ must comply with principles of necessity, proportionality and legality, while ensuring appropriate safeguards in place for data subjects. However, there is ambiguity as to how the LED should work in practice due to several conceptual issues that the LED raises. This paper discusses three conceptual issues: Consent, the categorisation of witnesses, suspects and victims, and the categorisation of facts versus opinions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074075304&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.21552/edpl/2019/3/10

DO - 10.21552/edpl/2019/3/10

M3 - Article

SN - 2364-2831

VL - 5

SP - 367

EP - 378

JO - European Data Protection Law Review

JF - European Data Protection Law Review

IS - 3

ER -

The law enforcement directive: Conceptual challenges of EU directive 2016/680

Abstract

Funding

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this