441 Esther Salamanca Aguado Respect for privacy and personal data protection... 2.2. The right to the protection of personal data According to the case law of the ECtHR, the protection of personal data falls within the scope of Article 8. The notion of “private life” is given a broad interpretation by the Court, and coincides with that of the Council of Europe Convention 108 of 28 January 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data,51 the purpose of which is to “secure in the territory of each Party for every individual (…) respect for his rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular his right to privacy, with regard to automatic processing of personal data relating to him (Article 1), with the latter being defined as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual” (Article 2). In the S. and Marper v. United Kingdom case, the ECtHR pointed out that “the mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 8 (…)52 and that “the subsequent use of the stored information has no bearing on that finding”.53 It went on to add that “in determining whether the personal information retained by the authorities involves any of the private-life aspects mentioned above, the Court will have due regard to the specific context in which the information at issue has been recorded and retained, the nature of the records, the way in which these records are used and processed and the results that may be obtained”.54 In the instant case, the ECtHR noted that “(…) the fingerprints, DNA profiles and cellular samples, constitute personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Convention as they relate to identified or identifiable individuals”.55 It also ruled that the storing by public authorities of data relating to the private life of an individual on the grounds of national security amounted to an interference with his right to respect for private life,56 as did the storing of data relating to the private life of an individual obtained through the interception of telephone calls,57 the protection of medical 51 Case of Amman v. Switzerland. Judgment of 16 February 2000, paragraph 65. 52 Case of S. and Marper vs. United Kingdom. Judgment of 4 December 2008, paragraph 67. See also the case of Leander v. Sweden. Judgment of 26 March 1987, paragraph 48, 53 Ibid. See also the Case of Amman v. Switzerland. Judgment of 16 February 2000, paragraph 69. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid., paragraph 68 and 86. See also the Case of M.K. v. France. Judgment of 18 April 2013, paragraph 26. 56 Case of Leander v. Sweden, paragraph 48. See also the case of Rotaru v. Romania, paragraph 43. 57 Case of Amman v. Sweden. Judgment of 16 February 2000, paragraphs 65, 69 and 80.
REVISTA IEEE 4
To see the actual publication please follow the link above