Database Reference
In-Depth Information
Both the EU data protection and anti-discrimination frameworks rely upon the
existence of supervisory bodies: Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and Equality
bodies.
Data Protection Authorities are independent supervisory authorities that have
several, sometimes different, powers and responsibilities (depending on the
national legislations implementing the Data Protection Directive). Thus, apart
from keeping a processing register, they can offer advice, investigate issues,
handle complaints, make a certain number of decisions concerning determinate
data processing operations, provide authorisations, take a case to court, or even
institute binding rules/regulations (Gutwirth 2002, p. 93). This does not mean
however that judicial processes are totally absent from data protection law:
member states are obliged to ensure the existence of judicial remedies that can
grant compensation to data subjects (art. 23
DP
).
Equality bodies have similar powers and responsibilities as they must provide
independent assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints before
the Courts, conduct independent surveys concerning discrimination, publish
independent reports and make recommendations on any issue relating to
discrimination (art. 13(2)
RE
). Also, depending on the country, their powers will often
include competences to provide advice, or handle complaints in the framework of
alternative dispute settlement mechanisms (see e.g. De Hert and Ashiagbor 2011).
16
It is interesting to note that the differences between the supervisory bodies are
only marginal, which is not the case for the subjective rights featured by the two
legal regimes.
As far as data protection is concerned, data subjects have the right to be
informed that their data is being used in a processing operation (art. 10 and 11
Data Protection (DP) Directive 95/46/EC
). They also have the right to access
their data when these have been processed, e.g., they can investigate how the
processing operation is carried out, whether databases exist, what their purpose is,
and who is responsible for the processing (art. 12(a)
DP
; Gutwirth, 2002, p. 102).
Furthermore, in case the data appear to be incomplete, inaccurate, or processed in
a manner that is incompatible with the other data protection principles, the data
subject has the right to ask for the rectification, or even the erasure of his or her
data (art. 12(b)
DP
; Gutwirth, 2002, p. 102). Data subjects are also entitled to
object to the processing of their personal data provided there are “compelling
legitimate grounds” (art. 14(a)
DP
). Finally, data subjects have the right “not to be
subject to a decision which produces legal effects concerning him or significantly
affects him and which is based solely on automated processing of data” (art. 15
DP
), which means that important decisions concerning them cannot be taken
solely on the automated processing of data, and that they have a right to actively
participate in those very decisions (Gutwirth, 2002, p. 104).
Anti-discrimination legislation also warrants individual rights to the subjects they
aim to protect. Those rights are mostly intended to guarantee access to justice that is
as efficient as possible (Fredman 2009). In this respect, some provisions aim at
improving the ability of “discrimination subjects” to defend their rights, since they
foresee that “Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative
16
Also, on the role of the Article 29 Working Party, see Poullet and Gutwirth (2008).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search