Browsing by Author "Pajunoja, Lauri Johannes"

The EU´s data protection law is under reform. The Union has adopted the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) to repeal the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (DPD), which is currently governing the protection of personal data in EU. The Data Protection Directive does not apply to activities in the areas of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. To fix this lack of scope the EU adopted the Data Protection Directive on Police Matters 2016/680 . These adopted legislative instruments will step in force at May 2018. The question of this thesis is whether the Data Protection Directive on Police Matters ensures protection of the right to privacy. This new Directive aims to ensure that natural persons´ level of protection of the rights and freedoms is equivalent in all member states in relation to the processing of their personal data in police matters. The Directive harmonizes the legislation in minimum level. It allows the member states to adopt stronger protection and stricter provisions on data protection. This thesis answers to the question with three points. Firstly, with optimistic interpretation that it does as in the legislative level the protection is already good. Union´s already existing data protection principles are just going to be extended to cover the field of police matters. Secondly, with realistic approach that it is too early to say. The member states legislative traditions differ from each other and the forthcoming Directive is abstract. It leaves member states room to interpret it, and the implementation is not yet ready. And thirdly, the implementation of the new Directive has problems because the member states´ national systems and the cultures of application differ. Some countries, like Finland, have dozens of manuals and handbooks of data protection principles to be applied in practice and even compulsory online courses to be passed by the officers in order to be allowed to practice their profession. Some member states do not have such procedures and the cultures of judicial cooperation are not at the same level between countries. The authorities try to fight against serious crimes and terrorism and in that fight they occasionally interfere with individuals’ fundamental rights. They must balance between two interests: the maintenance of national security and the maintenance of adequate protection of personal data and privacy. These interests should not be seen as competing interests in sense that if the other is well protected the other would not be protected. The developing technology enables new and more extensive possibilities for authorities to interfere with individuals´ fundamental rights. The legislators should keep this in mind when evaluating needs to develop new rules to guide the interfering measures.