Articles

Part three - GDPR and public law: To retroact or not?

Part three - GDPR and public law: To retroact or not?

Part three - GDPR and public law: To retroact or not?

07.06.2019 BE law

Since the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) became applicable almost one year ago, multiple questions have arisen about its interaction with other fields of law. In this three-part blog series of “GDPR and public law”, we discuss three capita selecta of the interaction of GDPR with public law and government. In this blog we discuss the retroactive application of GDPR.

With the GDPR becoming applicable on 25 May 2018 and the new Belgian Data Protection Act of 30 July 2018 entering into force on 5 September 2019, more severe administrative fines and criminal sanctions were introduced in conjunction with several data protection obligations. According to European and national law, there can be no retroactive application of more severe penalties.[1] The European Court of Human Rights has developed some criteria in its jurisprudence to assess whether this principle of non-retroactivity also applies to administrative fines, being (i) the legal qualification of the infringement in national law, (ii) the nature of the infringement and (iii) the severity of the penalty. Following this test, it appears that the administrative fines under the GDPR fall within the scope of this principle of non-retroactivity.

What does this mean in practice?

For infringements that existed only before 25 May 2018, the new sanctions may not be imposed. For infringements that existed only after 25 May 2018, the new sanctions may be imposed. The difficulty lies with infringements that existed both before and after 25 May 2018.

For infringements that existed before and after 25 May 2018, a distinction must be made between criminal sanctions and administrative fines. For criminal sanctions, the infringement will most likely be considered as a whole by using typical mechanisms of criminal law such as “eenheid van opzet / unité d'intention” and “voortdurend misdrijf / infraction continue”. In this respect Article 65 of the Belgian Criminal Code states that: “where one and the same act gives rise to several offences or where several offences which are the successive and continuous execution of the same criminal intention are simultaneously submitted to the same criminal court, only the most serious penalty shall be imposed”. Consequently, the new sanctions will probably be applied to the whole of the infringement.

For administrative fines, the situation is more unclear. The Belgian Constitutional Court has previously ruled that it is not discriminatory that these mechanisms of criminal law do not apply to administrative fines. Article 82, §3 GDPR states that: “if a controller or processor intentionally or negligently, for the same or linked processing operations, infringes several provisions of this Regulation, the total amount of the administrative fine shall not exceed the amount specified for the gravest infringement”. Other than the Article 65 of the Belgian Criminal Code as referred to above, this article is limited to infringements of the GPDR itself and does not explicitly refer to any succession or continuity over time. However, Data Protection Authorities have a lot of leeway and can apply various criteria to ensure reasonableness when imposing administrative fines, amongst which the duration of the infringement, so that de facto they could probably apply the same mechanisms.

 

[1] See Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the Belgian Criminal Code.

Team

Related news

02.07.2019 NL law
Debate night: HR Analytics: opportunity or threat?

Seminar - On 2 July 2019, Stibbe's Digital Economy Group will host a debate night in Amsterdam on the hot topic of HR analytics. During Stibbe's debate night, speakers from the world of business, politics, science and law will exchange views on HR analytics, how they can be used in practice, and their development in the context of employment and privacy law.

Read more

21.06.2019 NL law
Staatssteun: Real Madrid scoort tegen de Europese Commissie

Short Reads - Op 22 mei 2019 heeft het Gerecht van de Europese Unie ("GvEU" of "Gerecht") een besluit van de Europese Commissie over vermeende staatssteun van circa € 18,4 miljoen aan voetbalclub Real Madrid vernietigd. De staatssteun zou volgens de Europese Commissie zijn verleend in de context van een grondtransactie tussen Real Madrid en de gemeente Madrid.

Read more

21.06.2019 EU law
Un nouvel arrêt de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne en matière d'évaluation des incidences des plans et des programmes!

Articles - Par un arrêt du 12 juin 2019, la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne a considéré qu’un arrêté bruxellois qui fixe une zone spéciale de conservation (Natura 2000) est bien un plan ou un programme, mais qui n’est pas nécessairement soumis à une évaluation des incidences sur l’environnement. Au détour de cet arrêt, elle a confirmé certains enseignements de sa jurisprudence antérieure.

Read more

21.06.2019 NL law
Nieuw boetebeleid van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Short Reads - Op 14 maart 2019 zijn de nieuwe Boetebeleidsregels Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens 2019 ("Boetebeleidsregels") van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens ("AP") gepubliceerd. Dit boetebeleid heeft de AP opgesteld vanwege de inwerkingtreding van de Algemene verordening gegevensverwerking ("AVG") en omdat er op Europees niveau nog geen boeterichtsnoeren zijn opgesteld.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring