Suchergebnisse

O objetivo do presente artigo é o de proceder a uma breve análise do regime sancionatório previsto no Regulamento (UE) 2016/679 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 27 de abril de 2016, relativo à proteção das pessoas singulares no que diz respeito ao tratamento de dados pessoais e à livre circulação desses dados (RGPD) e que revoga a Diretiva 95/46/CE. Será devotada especial atenção ao regime contraordenacional previsto no artigo 83.º do RGPD. Concluímos que os Estados-Membros deveriam adotar uma postura crítica ao adaptar a sua legislação nacional às normas do RGPD. Atendendo à natureza do regime sancionatório previsto no RGPD, os princípios fundamentais consagrados nas constituições nacionais e nos textos jurídicos supranacionais deverão ser analisados e observados atentamente. ; The aim of this paper is to analyse the punitive regime foreseen in the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (GDPR). The administrative fines' regime found in Article 83 of the GDPR and some of the questions it arises will be explored. We conclude that the Member States should adopt a critical stance when adapting their national legislation to the norms of the GDPR. The fundamental principles enshrined in national constitutions and supranational legal texts must be closely analysed and observed since the GDPR introduces a mandatory sanctions framework.

It can be concluded from the Tele2 judgment of 2016 that i) the declaration of invalidity of the provisions contained in a directive inevitably affects the legal act of transposition into the legal order of the Member States, and ii) a Member State cannot resort to the Directive 2002/58 to impose a generalised and undifferentiated obligation to conserve traffic and location data following the declaration of invalidity of Directive 2006/24. It is, therefore, urgent to draw conclusions from this recent ruling by the CJEU, which is all the more relevant because, in Member States where the transposed legislation continued to apply following the declaration of invalidity of Directive 2006/24 – as was the case in Portugal – many criminal convictions were based on the access to potentially illegitimate data. The authors seek to demonstrate what is happening in Portugal in this area and call for compliance with the jurisprudence of the CJEU – not only because the effectiveness of the European Union law is at stake, but also (and above all), the legal equality between European citizens.

Propósito: O texto se ocupa da recente jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia (TJUE) sobre a conservação de dados ("metadados") por fornecedores de serviços de comunicações eletrónicas para efeitos de investigação, deteção e repressão de infrações graves. Os autores procuram deslindar as implicações, para as autoridades dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia (UE), da declaração de invalidade da diretiva que regulava a matéria, por forma a afastar uma diferenciação ilegítima de tratamento entre os cidadãos europeus. Metodologia: O texto foi elaborado enquanto se aguardava a resposta do TJUE relativamente às questões prejudiciais formuladas por dois tribunais nacionais (um sueco e outro britânico) quanto aos efeitos da declaração de invalidade da Diretiva 2006/24 na legislação interna que a transpôs. Assim, os autores procuraram antecipar a decisão do TJUE a partir da análise da sua jurisprudência assente, bem como da reação das autoridades dos Estados-Membros na sequência da declaração de invalidade da referida diretiva. Resultados: Os autores julgam ter traçado, à luz das particularidades da proteção dos direitos fundamentais na UE e do modelo jurídico da integração, linhas orientadoras quanto ao procedimento a adotar em casos futuros, por forma a salvaguardar a efetividade do direito da União assim como a igualdade jurídica dos cidadãos europeus. ; Purpose – The text deals with the recent case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the directive on the retention of data (metadata) by providers of electronic communications services for the purposes of investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crimes. The authors seek to clarify the implications of the declaration of invalidity of this European directive for the EU Member States, towards the protection of legal equality of European citizens. Methodology/approach/design – The text was drafted while there was a pending ECJ's response to the questions referred by two national courts (one Swedish and one British) on the effects of ...

It can be concluded from the Tele2 judgment of 2016 that i) the declaration of invalidity of the provisions contained in a directive inevitably affects the legal act of transposition into the legal order of the Member States, and ii) a Member State cannot resort to the Directive 2002/58 to impose a generalised and undifferentiated obligation to conserve traffic and location data following the declaration of invalidity of Directive 2006/24. It is, therefore, urgent to draw conclusions from this recent ruling by the CJEU, which is all the more relevant because, in Member States where the transposed legislation continued to apply following the declaration of invalidity of Directive 2006/24 – as was the case in Portugal – many criminal convictions were based on the access to potentially illegitimate data. The authors seek to demonstrate what is happening in Portugal in this area and call for compliance with the jurisprudence of the CJEU – not only because the effectiveness of the European Union law is at stake, but also (and above all), the legal equality between European citizens ...