Consideration of case after reference to ECJ.Held: it is appropriate to grant declaratory relief, limited to the context of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the effect that DRIPA was inconsistent with EU law to the extent that it permitted access to retained data, where the objective pursued by that access was not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, or where access was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority.
Judges:
SirGeoffrey Vos Ch, Patten, Lloyd Jones LJJ
Citations:
[2018] EWCA Civ 70
Links:
Statutes:
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Reference – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .
Cited – Digital Rights Ireland v The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources etc ECJ 8-Apr-2014
ECJ Grand Chamber – Electronic communications – Directive 2006/24/EC – Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services – Retention of data generated or processed . .
At ECJ – Tele2 Sverige v Post-och telestyrelsen,
and Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 21-Dec-2016
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications – Processing of personal data – Confidentiality of electronic communications – Protection – Directive 2002/58/EC – Articles 5, 6 and 9 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, European
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604151