Din decembrie 2012/ianuarie 2013:

1. Guvernul Romaniei a propus in noul proiect de lege de punere în aplicare a Codului de Procedură Penală trimis la Senat niste modificari ale procedurii de acces la datele de trafic stocate in conformitate cu noua lege Big Brother 82/2012. Mai multe detalii pe site-ul ApTI:

   Pe scurt, două noi importante propuneri:

   1. această solicitare poate fi făcută doar cu autorizarea prealabilă a judecătorului de drepturi şi libertăţi. Diferenţa, faţă de actualele prevederi, constă în aceea că autorizarea judecătorului este acum necesară pentru toate organele de urmărire penală, şi nu doar pentru organele de cercetare ale poliţiei judiciare.

   2. datele pot fi solicitate doar atunci când există o suspiciune rezonabilă cu privire la săvârşirea unei infracţiuni şi există temeiuri pentru a se crede că datele solicitate constituie probe.

2. Curtea Constitutionala din Austria, sesizata (de 11 000 de cetateni!) cu neconstitutionalitatea legii nationale privind pastrarea datelor de trafic informational a trimis la Curtea Europeana de Justitie citeva intrebari referitoare la modul cum aceasta directiva ar incalca Carta UE privind drepturile omului. Mai jos textul integral al intrebarilor care ar trebui sa rezolve o data pentru totdeauna mascarada asta cu datele de trafic.

1. On the validity of acts of Union bodies:
Are Articles 3 to 9 of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC compatible with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights?

2. On the interpretation of the Treaties:
2.1. In order to assess the permissibility of interferences, are Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
Institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data to be considered on an equal footing with the provisions of Article 8 (2) and Article 52 (1) of the Charter, in the light of the explanations on Article 8 of the Charter ‐ drafted pursuant to Art 52 (7) of the Charter as guidance on the interpretation of the Charter – which must be duly considered by the Constitutional Court?
2.2. What is the relation between “Union law“ referred to in Article 52 (3) last sentence of the Charter and the data protection directives?
2.3. Given that Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) 45/2001 lay down conditions and limitations on exercising the right to data protection set out in the Charter, should changes arising from later secondary law be considered when interpreting Article 8 of the Charter?
2.4. In consideration of Article 52 (4) of the Charter, does the principle of providing more extensive protection laid down in Article 53 of the Charter in consequence mean that the relevant limits for permissible restrictions by secondary law should be drawn narrower?
2.5. In view of Article 52 (3) of the Charter, para 5 of the Preamble, and of the explanations on Article 7 of the Charter, according to which the rights they guarantee are the same as those laid down in Article 8 ECHR, is it possible that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 8 ECHR results in positions on the interpretation of Article 8 of the Charter which may influence the interpretation of the said Article?