THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY UNDER EU GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION

Daria BULGAKOVA, Valentyna BULGAKOVA

BULGAKOVA D., BULGAKOVA V. (2023), THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY UNDER EU GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION. PHILOSOPHY, ECONOMICS AND LAW REVIEW. Volume 3, no. 1, 266-284

DOI: 10.31733/2786-491X-2023-1-266-284

 

Abstract. The processing of personal data is regulated by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. At the same time, Article 52(1) of the Charter recognizes that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of this right, and such restrictions must be provided for by law and comply with the principle of proportionality. Thus, according to Recital 4 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), personal data must be processed in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The lack of specificity regarding how this principle is applied and guided in the field of personal data processing regulation creates a problem of legal uncertainty that requires further clarification on this issue. This study explores the conceptual meaning and specifics of the principle of proportionality, which guides the processing of personal data for the best protection.

The study examines how this principle has evolved from the human rights framework to the personal data protection field. The analysis presented in this study offers a new understanding of the principle of proportionality under the GDPR, emphasizing the need for a specific legal mechanism under which the doctrine can adequately serve as a tool for protecting individual data. However, it is worth noting that this legal mechanism can only legitimately operate if it meets specially developed legal criteria. The designed model consists of two key components: First, even if there is a legal basis, if it does not meet the requirement of strict necessity, the processing is considered disproportionate due to the uncertainty of the legal basis. Secondly, if the data protection measures are inadequate, the automatic processing adversely affects the interests of the individual, and therefore, the proportionality principle is not met.

Keywords: GDPR, fundamental human right to personal data protection, automotive data processing, balance of interests, purpose limitation, necessity.

References

  1. Amankwaa, A. (2020). Trends in forensic DNA database: transnational exchange of DNA data. Forensic Sciences Research, 5 (1), pp. 8-14. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1080/ 20961790.2019.1565651.
  2. Balboni, P. et al. (2019). Accountability and Enforcement Aspects of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Methodology for the Creation of an Effective Compliance Framework and a Review of Recent Case Law [notes]. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, no. 15, 102 p.
  3. Brkan, M. (2016). The Unstoppable Expansion of EU Fundamental Right to Data Protection. Little Shop of Horrors? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(5), pp. 812-841. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1602300505.
  4. Bulgakova, D. (2021). Application of the Principle of Proportionality on Biometric Data Processing in European Union Law. University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), Law Faculty, Doctoral of Laws Degree Dissertation, pp. 1-371.
  5. Bulgakova, D. (2022). Case Study on the Fingerprint Processing in a Workplace under GDPR Article 9 (2, b). Teisė, no. 124, pp. 22-38. Doi : https://doi.org/10.15388/Teise.2022.124.2.
  6. Bulgakova, D. (2022). The Protection of Commodified Data in E-Platforms. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1 (2022), pp. 208-212. Doi : https://doi.org/10.24144/2788- 6018.2022.01.39.
  7. Cohen-Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2010). American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8 (2), pp. 263-286. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq004.
  8. Długosz, J. (2017). The Principle of Proportionality in European Union Law as a Prerequisite for Penalization. Przegląd Prawniczy Uniwersytetu Im. Adama Mickiewicza, 7 (7), pp. 283-300. Doi : https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2017.7.17.
  9. Fuster Gonzalez, G. (2014). Fighting for Your Right to What Exactly – The Convoluted Case Law of the EU Court of Justice on Privacy and/or Personal Data Protection. Birkbeck Law Review, 2, 263 p.
  10. Gill-Pedro, E., & Linderfalk, U. (2020) Proportionality in International Law: Whose Interests Count? Nordic Journal of International Law. Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium, 89 (3-4), pp. 275-285. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-89030001.
  11. Hildebrandt, M. (2016). Law as Information in the Era of Data-Driven Agency: Law as Information. Modern Law Review, 79 (1), pp. 1-30. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2230.12165.
  12. Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do : doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17 (1), pp. 83-119. Doi : https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70.
  13. Cheung, J. (2020). Balancing fundamental rights in private law through the double proportionality test. Nottingham Law Journal, 28 (2), p. 53.
  14. Jasserand, C. (2018). Subsequent Use of GDPR Data for a Law Enforcement Purpose. European Data Protection Law Review (Internet), 4 (2), pp. 152-167. Doi : https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2018/2/6.
  15. Jizeng, F. (2016). Rethinking the Method and Function of Proportionality Test in the European Court of Human Rights, Journal of Human Rights, 15 (1), pp. 47-52.
  16. Krivogin, M. (2017). Peculiarities of Legal Regulating Biometric Personal Data. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, no. 2, pp. 80-89. Doi : https://doi.org/10.17323/2072- 8166.2017.2.80.89.
  17. Lubin, A. (2020) The liberty to spy. Harvard International Law Journal, 61(1), pp. 185-243.
  18. Macenaite, M. (2017). The “Riskification” of European Data Protection Law through a two-fold Shift. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 8 (3), pp. 506-540. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2017.40.
  19. Marchant, G., Allenby, B., & Herkert, J. (2011). The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight The Pacing Problem (G. Marchant, B. Allenby, & J. Herkert, Eds.; 1st ed. 2011). Springer Netherlands. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7.
  20. Newton, M. (2018). Reframing the proportionality principle. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 51 (3), pp. 867-885.
  21. Petersen, N. (2020). Alexy and the “German” Model of Proportionality: Why the Theory of Constitutional Rights Does Not Provide a Representative Reconstruction of the Proportionality Test. German Law Journal, 21 (2), pp. 163-173. Doi : https://doi.org/10.1017/ glj.2020.9.
  22. Pohrebnyak, S. (2017). The Principle of Proportionality as the General Principle of Law, Law of Ukraine: Legal Journal, p. 39.
  23. Saks, M., & Spellman, B. (2016). The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law. New York University Press. Doi : https://doi.org/10.18574/9780814768785.
  24. Spadaro, A. (2016). Between reference models and legal innovations. Comparative and European Public Law, no. 2, 297 p.
  25. Taylor, M. (2015). Safeguarding the Right to Data Protection in the EU, 30th and 31st October, 2014, Paris, France. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 31 (80), pp. 145-152. Doi : https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.cw.
  26. Tsakirakis, (2011). Proportionality: violation of human rights? Comparative Constitutional Review, 2 (81), pp. 48-50.
  27. Vadi, V. (2015). The migration of constitutional ideas to regional and international economic law: the case of proportionality. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 35 (3), 557 p.
Views: 165