[Chapter-delegates] [European-chapters] Isoc , EU Directive on data retention and Romanian Law request for comments

Tue Jun 28 13:42:29 PDT 2011

http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2075377/watchdog-slams-eu-retention-directive

Good evening:

Whereas Costas Popotas is correct regarding the institutional and  
legal aspects of this Directive,
regarding the substance of the matter, my understanding is that the  
implementation of the Directive is inconsistent with EU privacy law  
and policy, disproportionate as to the costs, and ineffective  
regarding both harmonisation and crime prevention.

Regards,

CW

On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:19, Eduard Tric wrote:

> Thank you Costas,we are aware about the info you provided , but why  
> cannot experts admit just for once that there is something wrong  
> with this directive ? The isp's tell us it's wrong, the telcos  
> providers tell us it's wrong, the associations of user protection  
> the same.
> Moreover , the constitutional Court remarks and EU directive are  in  
> 180 degrees opposite directions , we don't see  a miracle solution  
> in proposing another law, as the problem rised by the court comes  
> from the directive. The transposition of aquis is pretty standard  
> legal stuff , there is very little marge in the implementation. So  
> what would be the solution ? If we put isoc name on the new law and  
> the new law will not pass the pairlement , senate and Constitutional  
> Court we will loss credibility. If we do nothing it would not help  
> the EU netizens that we represent, as this problem was already  
> largely discussed on the list.
> Best regards,
> Eduard
>
>
>  From: Costas Popotas <cpop at txt.gr>
> To: Eduard Tric <eduard.tric at isoc.ro>; Marta Dias <marta at fccn.pt>;  
> 'Chapter Delegates' <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Isoc ,Eu Directive on data  
> retention and Romanian Law request for comments
>
> I intervene as an outsider but expert in EU law. When Romania joined  
> EU it accepted the "acquis communautaire" the preexisting legal  
> framework , thus the obligation to amend its legislation in domains  
> contravening EU secondary legislation  according to the principle of  
> supremacy of EU legislation. But as I understand it, the Romanian  
> Court did not declare unconstitutional the EU directive (which they  
> could have done since they have no such competence) they declared  
> unconstitutional the national legislation implementing the  
> directive. A directive is a broad framework stating the objectives  
> to be attained leaving to the member state the responsibility of the  
> means adopted. This means simply  new legislation has to be adopted  
> in conformity with both EU directive and the national constitution.  
> Nothing dramatic of revolutionary this has been done several times  
> in the past elsewhere.
>
> The end of a beautiful friendship has meaning only if a member state  
> drops out of the EU.
>
> best
>
> Costas Popotas
> Luxembourg
> ----- Original Message ----- .
> From: Eduard Tric
> To: Marta Dias ; 'Chapter Delegates'
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Isoc ,Eu Directive on data  
> retention and Romanian Law request for comments
>
> Hi Marta , Thanks for the info, Portugal did their homework just  
> like any other member state.
> What is interesting in Romania is that this law (and implicit the  
> directive ) is unconstitutional.
> The Directive  2006/24/EC  was made before EU enlargement, Romania  
> never voted for it , so it should be modified.
> As a general rule , any  directive declared unconstitutional by a  
> member state should be modified.
> EU is a union of sovereign states and should never act as a super- 
> state, or it will be "the end of a beautiful friendship" , to mis- 
> quote from Casablanca..
> Regards,
> Eduard
>
> From: Marta Dias <marta at fccn.pt>
> To: 'Eduard Tric' <eduard.tric at isoc.ro>; 'Chapter Delegates' <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org 
> >; 'Frederic Donck' <donck at isoc.org>; 'Christopher Wilkinson' <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [Chapter-delegates] Isoc , Eu Directive on data  
> retention and Romanian Law request for comments
>
> Hi,
> In Portugal Law 32/2008, transposes into national law Directive  
> 2006/24/EC of Parliament and the Council of 15 March on the  
> retention of data generated or processed in the context of provision  
> of electronic communications services or of public communications  
> networks. Under this law the operators are required to retain the  
> data for a one year period (from the date of the conclusion of the  
> communication).
> Best regards,
> Marta M. Dias
> ISOC.PT
>
>
> From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Eduard Tric
> Sent: terça-feira, 28 de Junho de 2011 13:51
> To: Chapter Delegates; Frederic Donck; Christopher Wilkinson
> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Isoc , Eu Directive on data retention  
> and Romanian Law request for comments
>
> As you probably know , the Romanian Constitutional Court has  
> declared in 2009  Unconstitional the Romanian  transposition of the  
> Eu Directive on Data retention (romanian law 298/2008). As a  
> reminder , this directive asked to retain for 6 months (expenses  
> paid by the operators ) any telecommunication data, including and  
> not limited also to internet data.
>
> Now the romanian government decided to have a more open approach ,  
> and are asking for input from civil society. We have 2-3 weeks to  
> make an answer that is compliant to the Directive AND to the  
> Constitutional court decision.
>
> We would be  happy to take on our side input from other chapters,  
> Isoc ECC,  Isoc HQ and European Bureau.
>
> . As it is unlikey that in Romania other organisations will  
> respond , we see this as an opportunity for ISOC , especially in  
> preparation for  the Inet in Bucharest but also to mark a point and  
> help to change this unuseful directive into a more citzien-oriented  
> one. It's gonna be our first public policy-making position, so we  
> want to be as accurate as possible.
>
> Regards,
> Eduard Tric
>
> References :
> http://www.mcsi.ro/Transparenta-decizionala
> http://www.mcsi.ro/Transparenta-decizionala/24/ProiectRetinereaDatelor
> http://www.mcsi.ro/Transparenta-decizionala/24/ExpunereMotive
> Eu Directive 2006/24/CE with modification on 2002/58/CE  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:HTML
> romanian law 298/2008  http://www.legi-internet.ro/legislatie-itc/date-cu-caracter-personal/legea-2982008-privind-pastrarea-datelor-de-trafic-informational.html
>
> Eu commision letter from 16-th of June 2011 reminding the necessity  
> of transponding the directive  2006/24/CE
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> European-chapters mailing list
> European-chapters at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/european-chapters

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20110628/5bc2711c/attachment.htm>