Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Datalagring kontra personlig integritet - Svensk rätt efter ogiltigförklarandet av datalagringsdirektivet

Ranvinge, Linnea LU (2014) LAGF03 20142
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
År 2006 trädde datalagringsdirektivet i kraft med två terrorattentat i Europa i bagaget. Syftet var att harmonisera medlemsstaternas lagstiftning gällande lagring av trafikuppgifter samt förenkla förebyggande och utredande av allvarlig brottslighet. De uppgifter som teleoperatörerna skulle lagra rörde vem som kommunicerade med vem, när och var det skedde samt vilken typ av kommunikation som användes.
Regleringen var kontroversiell redan när den kom; många medlemsstater menade att den stod i strid med rätten till privatliv och skyddet för personuppgifter (artikel 7 och 8 i stadgan). Samtidigt framhävdes trafikuppgifters betydelse i brottsutredningar.
I Sverige implementerades datalagringsdirektivet år 2012, främst genom ändringar i... (More)
År 2006 trädde datalagringsdirektivet i kraft med två terrorattentat i Europa i bagaget. Syftet var att harmonisera medlemsstaternas lagstiftning gällande lagring av trafikuppgifter samt förenkla förebyggande och utredande av allvarlig brottslighet. De uppgifter som teleoperatörerna skulle lagra rörde vem som kommunicerade med vem, när och var det skedde samt vilken typ av kommunikation som användes.
Regleringen var kontroversiell redan när den kom; många medlemsstater menade att den stod i strid med rätten till privatliv och skyddet för personuppgifter (artikel 7 och 8 i stadgan). Samtidigt framhävdes trafikuppgifters betydelse i brottsutredningar.
I Sverige implementerades datalagringsdirektivet år 2012, främst genom ändringar i LEK. Skyddet av uppgifterna var i vissa avseenden mer omfattande och utlämningsförfarandet mer kontrollerat. Lagringstiden bestämdes till sex månader, vilket var kortast möjliga tid enligt datalagringsdirektivet.
I april 2014 ogiltigförklarade EU-domstolen datalagringsdirektivet med förklaringen att unionslagstiftaren gått utöver proportionalitetsprincipens gränser. Kritik riktades mot lagringens omfattning, den begränsade för- och efterhandskontrollen samt bristande skydd av uppgifterna. Främst ifrågasattes avsaknaden av krav på indicium då någon koppling till misstanke inte krävdes utan samtliga medborgare omfattades. Den här uppsatsen syftar till att utreda datalagringsdomens konsekvenser för svensk rätt, detta genom en rättsdogmatisk och EU-rättslig metod.
Slutsatsen blir att det kan ifrågasättas om lagring av samtliga medborgares trafikuppgifter, utan krav på brottsmisstanke, kan anses proportionerligt. Detta trots markanta fördelar i brottsutredningshänseende. En översyn av regleringen är nödvändig för att implementeringen ska anses förenlig med EU-rätten efter datalagringsdomen. Denna översyn bör medföra att krav ställs på brottsmisstanke redan när uppgifterna lagras, eftersom det är redan då ett intrång i integriteten sker. Detta görs bäst genom att datalagring får formen av ett tvångsmedel som brottsbekämpande myndigheter kan använda sig av när det är nödvändigt för förebyggande och utredande av allvarlig brottslighet. Först då uppfylls proportionalitetsprincipen fullt ut. (Less)
Abstract
In 2006, following the two terror attacks in Europe; the European Council adopted the Data Retention Directive. There were two primary reasons behind the legislation; most importantly to simplify the prevention and investigation of serious crimes in the union, but also to harmonise the legislation surrounding retention of data among the Member States. The directive obligated telecommunications operators to save data about the communicating parties; when and were the communication happened as well as the type of it. It should be noted that the actual data being transferred was not included.
The legislation deemed controversial from the beginning. The primary concern among the Member States was that it interfered with personal integrity,... (More)
In 2006, following the two terror attacks in Europe; the European Council adopted the Data Retention Directive. There were two primary reasons behind the legislation; most importantly to simplify the prevention and investigation of serious crimes in the union, but also to harmonise the legislation surrounding retention of data among the Member States. The directive obligated telecommunications operators to save data about the communicating parties; when and were the communication happened as well as the type of it. It should be noted that the actual data being transferred was not included.
The legislation deemed controversial from the beginning. The primary concern among the Member States was that it interfered with personal integrity, especially the respect for private life and the protection of personal data (article 7 and 8 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU).
Sweden implemented the Data Retention Directive in 2012 by extending the Electronic Communications Act. The Swedish law went to greater length to protect the personal integrity by introducing a more strict control before authorities can access the data. Furthermore, Sweden also selected the shortest period of preservation allowed; six months.
In April 2014 the European Court of Justice declared the Data Retention Directive invalid. The reason was that the EU legislator had exceeded the limits of the principle of proportionality. The court stated that the directive interfered with the fundamental rights of the union and criticised the range of the retention, the national authorities’ access to the data and the protection of the information stored. Especially the fact that every citizen was affected, without being involved in criminal activity, was questioned.
The purpose of this essay is to investigate the consequences of this judgement when it comes to the Swedish implementation.
The conclusion was made that it can be questioned if data preservation of every citizen in the union without crime suspicion is in accordance with the proportionality, even though the information stored can provide a valuable asset to crime investigation. Changes need to be made in order for the legislation to meet the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. These changes should involve crime suspicion before any data is stored. It should be shaped as a coercive measure for national authorities to use when needed, to prevent and solve serious crimes in the EU. The principle of proportionality will not be fulfilled until these changes have been made. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ranvinge, Linnea LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20142
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
administrative law, förvaltningsrätt, EU-rätt, EU law
language
Swedish
id
4925075
date added to LUP
2015-01-28 16:08:25
date last changed
2015-02-11 18:04:22
@misc{4925075,
  abstract     = {{In 2006, following the two terror attacks in Europe; the European Council adopted the Data Retention Directive. There were two primary reasons behind the legislation; most importantly to simplify the prevention and investigation of serious crimes in the union, but also to harmonise the legislation surrounding retention of data among the Member States. The directive obligated telecommunications operators to save data about the communicating parties; when and were the communication happened as well as the type of it. It should be noted that the actual data being transferred was not included. 
 The legislation deemed controversial from the beginning. The primary concern among the Member States was that it interfered with personal integrity, especially the respect for private life and the protection of personal data (article 7 and 8 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU).
 Sweden implemented the Data Retention Directive in 2012 by extending the Electronic Communications Act. The Swedish law went to greater length to protect the personal integrity by introducing a more strict control before authorities can access the data. Furthermore, Sweden also selected the shortest period of preservation allowed; six months.
 In April 2014 the European Court of Justice declared the Data Retention Directive invalid. The reason was that the EU legislator had exceeded the limits of the principle of proportionality. The court stated that the directive interfered with the fundamental rights of the union and criticised the range of the retention, the national authorities’ access to the data and the protection of the information stored. Especially the fact that every citizen was affected, without being involved in criminal activity, was questioned. 
 The purpose of this essay is to investigate the consequences of this judgement when it comes to the Swedish implementation. 
 The conclusion was made that it can be questioned if data preservation of every citizen in the union without crime suspicion is in accordance with the proportionality, even though the information stored can provide a valuable asset to crime investigation. Changes need to be made in order for the legislation to meet the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. These changes should involve crime suspicion before any data is stored. It should be shaped as a coercive measure for national authorities to use when needed, to prevent and solve serious crimes in the EU. The principle of proportionality will not be fulfilled until these changes have been made.}},
  author       = {{Ranvinge, Linnea}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Datalagring kontra personlig integritet - Svensk rätt efter ogiltigförklarandet av datalagringsdirektivet}},
  year         = {{2014}},
}