Source: https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/3170
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 19:35:53
Document Index: 336267248

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'arts 3', 'art 4', '§2']

A recap of what happened in the UK, after CJEU's Tele2/Watson judgment
However, existing DRIPA retention notices continued (at the latest) June 2017[1] by Schedule 9, paragraph 3 of the IPA 2016 [2]. This provision of the 2016 Act was commenced on 30 December 2016 [3]. These provisions are in effect a transitional arrangement to allow time for retention notices under DRIPA to be replaced by retention notices under Part 4 of the IPA when required. The provisions of Part 4 IPA have also been enacted, enabling new retention notices to be issued.
The government argued that the appeal could be disposed of based on an amended version of the Divisional Court’s Order [4]. In submissions to the House of Lords, European Union Committee, as reported in the report ‘Brexit: the EU data protection package’, the government stated that:
“The judicial review proceedings concerning the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014—aka DRIPA—have not yet concluded. We are currently waiting on the Court of Appeal’s response to the CJEU December 2016 judgment. However, in the light of the CJEU judgment, and in order to bring an end to the litigation, the Government have accepted to the Court of Appeal that the Act was inconsistent with EU law in two areas.” [5]
The government stated that this was consistent with paragraph 115 of the judgment [6], which referred to both the prevention of crime as well as ‘serious crime’. However, this may not go far enough in reflecting the emphasis elsewhere in that judgment on ‘serious crime’.
The power to retain data under the 2016 Act is in some respects wider than in DRIPA. For example, it includes a power to direct retention of internet connection records [7] (section 86(11)) and expands the definition of communication service providers (telecommunications operators), thus increasing those in respect of whom it can require to comply with retention notices. [8]
The Regulations bring into force the Communications Data Code of Practice and amend Parts 3 and 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to comply with the ECJ ruling. [9]
[1] Schedule 9 section 3(3) …cease to apply in relation to any retention notice under section 1o f the Act of 2014 – (a) at the end of the period of six months beginning with the commencement day, or (b) if earlier, on the revocation in full of the notice;
[2] The Explanatory Note to SI No.1233 (C.85) states: Regulation 2 brings into force the repeal of sections 1 and 2 of the Data Retention and investigatory Powers Act 2014 (c.27), which provide for communications data retention. Schedule 9 of the 2016 Act provides that a retention notice given under the 2014 Act continues to have effect for a period of 6 months from the 30thDecember (“the transitional period”) as if it were a notice given under Part 4 of the 2016 Act. Schedule 9 (3) Retention of communications data: 1. A retention notice under section 1 of DRIPA which is in force immediately before the commencement day is to be treated, on or after that day, as a retention notice under section 87 of this Act...2. In particular: 1. Anything which, immediately before the commencement day, is in the process of being done by virtue of, or in relation to, a retention notice under section 1 of the Act 2014 may be continued as if being done by virtue of, or in relation to, a retention notice under section 87 of this Act, and 2. Anything done by virtue of, or in relation to, a retention notice under section 1 of the Act of 2014 is, if in force or effective immediately before the commencement day, to have effect as if done by virtue of, or in relation to, a retention notice under section 87 of this Act so far as that is required for continuing its effect on or after the commencement day.
[3] IPA (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1233)
[4] Remember, it was the Divisional Court who found against the Government, in light of Digital Rights Ireland, and subsequently the Court of Appeal who referred the case to the European Court of Justice, but indicated they favoured the Government’s arguments.
[5] Baroness Williams of Trafford, Minister of State, Home Officehttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/7/7.pdf
[6] [115] … Further, since the objective pursued by that legislation must be proportionate to the seriousness of the interference in fundamental rights that that access entails, it follows that, in the area of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such access to the retained data.
[7] The definition of communications data to be retained and accessed now includes ‘Internet Connection Records’: which entails (but is not solely limited to) providing a record of the internet websites visited by an internet user;
[8] Prior to the Investigatory Powers Act, legislation[2]referred to ‘public’ telecommunications operators. The IPA has dropped the ‘public’ and refers simply to telecommunications operators. A telecommunications operator is defined at section 261(10)[2]as a person who “(a) offers or provides a telecommunications service to persons in the UK, or (b) controls or provides a telecommunications system” in or controlled from the UK. At 261(11) ‘Telecommunications service’ is ‘any service that consists in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any telecommunication system’ and at 261(13) a ‘Telecommunication system’ is ‘a system…that exists…for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic energy.’
The draft codes indicate the breadth of interpretation. See §2.10 – 2.14 https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Privacy%20International%20-%20Response%20to%20Consultation%20on%20IPA%20Codes%20of%20Practice%20-%20April%202017.pdf
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendants would resist any application for an Order that required the disapplication of any aspect of the current legislation before Parliament has been given an opportunity to amend the legislation to comply with EU law as clarified by the CJEU. These powers, which Parliament approved only last year, are vital to the police and intelligence agencies in arresting and prosecuting criminals and preventing terrorist attacks.”
[9] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2018-10-30a.1289.1