Cyprus / Supreme Court / Joint cases 216/14 and 36/2015

Application of Constantinos Syphantos from Geroskipou regarding the issue of a certiorari order
Policy area
Information society
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court of Cyprus
Type
Decision
Decision date
27/10/2015
  • Cyprus / Supreme Court / Joint cases 216/14 and 36/2015

    Key facts of the case:

    In October 2010 the police secured from the district court of Paphos orders to access the telephone data of the applicant, in the process of investigating criminal charges against him concerning the dispatch of threatening messages through SMS. The charges against the applicant concerned conspiracy for committing misdemeanours, consisting of the dispatch of written messages sent through telephone which contained death threats, the dispatch of insulting/indecent messages and interference with the judicial process. The applicant had previously secured from the district court a permit to file for certiorari orders in order to cancel the court orders secured by the police for accessing his telephone data; this case involved the examination of these orders by the Supreme Court. The applicant argued that the court orders which the police had secured from the lower court were in breach of articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, which safeguard the right to private life and data protection in light of the principle of proportionality, compliance with which is foreseen under article Charter article 52(1). The applicant also invoked article 15 of the Cypriot Constitution and article 8 of the ECHR and the invalidation of the Data Retention Directive by the CJEU in the Digital Rights Ireland case.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Court looked into whether the national data retention law which had transposed the Data Retention Directive had been invalidated by the Digital Rights Ireland case or whether its ambit extended beyond the Data Retention Directive, which would have meant that the validity of the law was intact. It concluded that although the national data retention law states in its preamble that it purports to transpose the Data Retention Directive, the ambit of this law is wider than that of the directive as it seeks to regulate access to data in addition to the duty to retain data. The court relied on judicial precedent which had also found that the national data retention law was not rendered invalid by the Digital Rights Ireland case.

    The Court rejected both certiorari applications filed by the claimant on the ground that the scope of the Charter, which is set out in article 51(1), provides that the Charter provisions apply only with regard to Union law and that national legislation which is not based on Union law cannot be assessed on the basis of the Charter. The Court concluded that the national legal framework adequately specifies the purpose and conditions for interfering with the right to communication in a manner that does not lead to infringement of article 8 of the ECHR or of any other rights protected by the Constitution nor does it violate the proportionality principle. In any case, even if the Charter had been found to be applicable, national law does not conflict with the Charter because all prerequisites for the protection of the fundamental rights of private life and communication are included in the legislation.

    With regard to the validity of the law following the invalidation of the Data Retention Directive by the CJEU ruling in the Digital Rights Ireland case, the English Court concluded that the ratio of that case is that legislation establishing a general data retention regime infringes Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter unless it is accompanied by an access regime at the national level which provides adequate safeguards for those rights. The Court concluded that the national law does provide such safeguards and is therefore compliant.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

     

    It is the position of the side for the Applicant, as this was unfolded by his learned counsel, that the issue of the contested court orders for access to telecommunications data infringes Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) which guarantees the right to protection of privacy and personal data respectively, in light of the proportionality principle, compliance with which is required by Article 52 (1) of the Charter.
    ...

    Counsel for the Respondent suggested that the scope of the Charter as regards the actions of Member States is set out in Article 51 (1), which provides that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to Member States only when the apply the law of the European Union. In this light the CJEU recalled in Case C-617/10 Akerberg Fransson, dated 02/26/2013, that it cannot assess, under the light of the Charter, national legislation which does not form part of Union law ... In conclusion, she submitted that the provisions of the Law are fully compatible with the Charter wider than those challenged in the Digital Rights Ireland case and ensure a high level of protection and data security, thus responding to the concerns raised in this case.
    ...

    The findings of the CJEU that some of the provisions of Directive 2006/24 / EC violate specific provisions of the Charter, including Article 7 which covers the right to privacy, led to its cancellation. The involvement, under these circumstances, of the Charter, raised as the first question for consideration in the present application the issue as to whether the provisions of the Charter apply and, by extension, whether what was said in the case of Digital Rights Ireland ought to be taken into account. The scope of the Charter, as regards the action of Member States, is set out in Article 51, paragraph 1, which provides that the provisions of the Charter 'are addressed. and to Member States only when they are implementing Union law.'

    ...

    It follows that the approach of counsel for the respondent is correct in that the provisions of the Charter cannot apply since we are not faced with application of Union law, but domestic law.

    ...

    Even if one were to accept the position of learned counsel for the Applicant for examination of the Law under the light of the provisions of the Charter and under the light of what was said in the Digital Rights Ireland decision, again the conclusion of the Court would be that the provisions of the legislation under review do not conflict with the Charter.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Είναι η θέση της πλευράς του Αιτητή, όπως αυτή αναπτύχθηκε από τον ευπαίδευτο συνήγορό του, ότι η έκδοση των επίδικων διαταγμάτων για εξασφάλιση τηλεπικοινωνιακών δεδομένων προσκρούει στα άρθρα 7 και 8 του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (ο Χάρτης), τα οποία κατοχυρώνουν το δικαίωμα προστασίας της ιδιωτικής ζωής και προστασίας προσωπικών δεδομένων, αντίστοιχα, υπό το πρίσμα της αρχής της αναλογικότητας, η τήρηση της οποίας επιβάλλεται από το ΄Άρθρο 52(1) του Χάρτη.

    Η ευπαίδευτη συνήγορος της Καθ΄ ης η αίτηση, εισηγήθηκε ότι το πεδίο εφαρμογής του Χάρτη, όσον αφορά τη δράση των Κρατών-Μελών ορίζεται στο ΄Άρθρο 51(1), το οποίο προβλέπει ότι οι διατάξεις του Χάρτη απευθύνονται στα Κράτη-Μέλη μόνο όταν εφαρμόζουν το δίκαιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Υπό το πρίσμα αυτό το ΔΕΕ υπενθύμισε στην υπόθεση C-617/10 Akerberg Fransson, ημερομηνίας 26.2.2013, ότι δεν μπορεί να εκτιμήσει, με γνώμονα το Χάρτη, εθνική κανονιστική ρύθμιση η οποία δεν εντάσσεται στο πλαίσιο του δικαίου της Ένωσης… Καταληκτικά έθεσε ότι οι διατάξεις του Νόμου είναι απόλυτα συμβατές με το Χάρτη, ευρύτερες από τις κριθείσες στην υπόθεση Digital Rights Ireland και διασφαλίζουν υψηλό επίπεδο προστασίας και ασφάλειας των δεδομένων, απαντώντας έτσι στις ανησυχίες που εκφράσθηκαν στην εν λόγω υπόθεση.

    Οι διαπιστώσεις του ΔΕΕ ότι κάποιες από τις διατάξεις της Οδηγίας 2006/24/ΕΚ παραβιάζουν συγκεκριμένες διατάξεις του Χάρτη, μεταξύ των οποίων και το ΄Αρθρο 7 που καλύπτει το δικαίωμα ιδιωτικής ζωής, οδήγησαν στην ακύρωσή της. Η εμπλοκή, υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, του Χάρτη, ήγειρε ως πρώτο ερώτημα προς εξέταση στις υπό κρίση αιτήσεις κατά πόσον τυγχάνουν εφαρμογής οι διατάξεις του Χάρτη και κατά προέκταση θα πρέπει να ληφθούν υπόψη τα όσα λέχθηκαν στην υπόθεση Digital Rights Ireland. Το πεδίο εφαρμογής του χάρτη, όσον αφορά τη δράση των Κρατών-Μελών, ορίζεται στο άρθρο 51, παράγραφος 1, αυτού, το οποίο προβλέπει ότι οι διατάξεις του Χάρτη «απευθύνονται . και στα Κράτη-Μέλη, μόνον όταν εφαρμόζουν το δίκαιο της Ένωσης.».