|
PARALLEL TEXTS
Secondo l’avvocato generale Cruz Villalón la direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati è incompatibile con la Carta dei diritti fondamentali
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-157_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-157_it.htm
Data documento: 12-12-2013
1 |
According to the Advocate General, Mr Cruz Villalón, the Data Retention Directive is incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights
|
Secondo l’avvocato generale Cruz Villalón la direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati è incompatibile con la Carta dei diritti fondamentali
|
2 |
He proposes, however, that the effects of the finding of invalidity should be suspended in order to enable the EU legislature to adopt, within a reasonable period, the measures necessary to remedy the invalidity found to exist
|
Egli propone tuttavia di sospendere gli effetti della constatazione di invalidità per consentire al legislatore dell’Unione di adottare, entro un lasso di tempo ragionevole, i provvedimenti necessari per porre rimedio all’invalidità constatata
|
3 |
In his Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón, takes the view that the Data Retention Directive is as a whole incompatible with the requirement, laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right must be provided for by law.
|
Nelle sue conclusioni in data odierna l’avvocato generale Pedro Cruz Villalón considera che la direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati è nel suo complesso incompatibile con il requisito, sancito dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, secondo cui qualsiasi limitazione dell’esercizio di un diritto fondamentale deve essere prevista dalla legge.
|
4 |
According to the Advocate General, the Directive constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental right of citizens to privacy, by laying down an obligation on the providers of telephone or electronic communications services to collect and retain traffic and location data for such communications.
|
Secondo l’avvocato generale la direttiva costituisce un’ingerenza grave nel diritto fondamentale dei cittadini al rispetto della vita privata, istituendo un obbligo per i fornitori di servizi di comunicazioni telefoniche o elettroniche di raccogliere e conservare i dati sul traffico e sull’ubicazione di tali comunicazioni.
|
5 |
The Advocate General points out, in this regard, that the use of those data may make it possible to create a both faithful and exhaustive map of a large portion of a person’s conduct strictly forming part of his private life, or even a complete and accurate picture of his private identity.
|
L’avvocato generale sottolinea al riguardo che l’utilizzo dei dati può consentire una mappatura tanto fedele quanto esaustiva di una parte importante dei comportamenti di una persona rientranti strettamente nell’ambito della sua vita privata, se non un ritratto completo e preciso della sua identità privata.
|
6 |
There is, moreover, an increased risk that the retained data might be used for unlawful purposes which are potentially detrimental to privacy or, more broadly, fraudulent or even malicious.
|
Esiste, peraltro, un rischio elevato che i dati conservati siano utilizzati a fini illeciti, potenzialmente lesivi della vita privata, oppure, più in generale, fraudolenti o malevoli.
|
7 |
Indeed, the data are not retained by the public authorities, or even under their direct control, but by the providers of electronic communications services themselves.
|
Tali dati non sono conservati infatti dalle pubbliche autorità, né sotto il controllo diretto di queste, ma dai fornitori stessi dei servizi di comunicazione elettronica.
|
8 |
Nor does the Directive provide that the data must be retained in the territory of a Member State.
|
Inoltre, la direttiva non prevede che i dati debbano essere conservati nel territorio di uno Stato membro.
|
9 |
They can therefore be accumulated at indeterminate locations in cyberspace.
|
Essi possono di conseguenza essere accumulati in luoghi imprecisati del ciberspazio.
|
10 |
In the light of that serious interference, the Directive should, first of all, have defined the fundamental principles which were to govern the determination of the minimum guarantees for access to the data collected and retained and their use.
|
In considerazione di tale ingerenza grave la direttiva avrebbe dovuto, anzitutto, stabilire i principi fondamentali che dovevano regolare la definizione delle garanzie minime inquadranti l’accesso ai dati raccolti e conservati e l’utilizzo di questi .
|
11 |
However, the Directive – which indeed regulates neither access to the data collected and retained nor their use – assigns the task of defining and establishing those guarantees to the Member States.
|
Orbene la direttiva – che peraltro non disciplina l’accesso ai dati raccolti e conservati, né il loro utilizzo – rimanda agli Stati membri il compito di definire e istituire tali garanzie
|
12 |
Accordingly, the Directive does not comply with the requirement, laid down by the Charter, that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right must be provided for by law, as that requirement is more than just a purely formal one.
|
Così facendo la direttiva non rispetta l’obbligo, previsto dalla Carta, secondo cui qualsiasi limitazione dell’esercizio di un diritto fondamentale deve essere prevista dalla legge. Tale requisito va infatti oltre un criterio puramente formale.
|
13 |
Thus, when the European Union legislature adopts, as in the case of the Data Retention Directive, an act imposing obligations which constitute serious interference with the fundamental rights of citizens of the Union, it must assume its share of responsibility by defining at the very least the principles which must govern the definition, establishment, application and review of observance of the necessary guarantees.
|
Il legislatore dell’Unione, infatti, nell’adottare un atto che, come nel caso della direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati , impone obblighi che costituiscono gravi ingerenze nei diritti fondamentali dei cittadini dell’Unione, deve assumersi la propria parte di responsabilità stabilendo quantomeno i principi che devono presiedere alla definizione, alla fissazione, all’applicazione e al controllo del rispetto di tali garanzie.
|
14 |
It is this very regulation which makes it possible to assess the scope of what the interference with the fundamental right entails in practical terms and which may, therefore, determine whether or not the interference is constitutionally acceptable.
|
È proprio tale inquadramento che permette di valutare la portata che comporta in concreto tale ingerenza nel diritto fondamentale e che può pertanto rendere quest’ultima tollerabile o meno dal punto di vista costituzionale.
|
15 |
Advocate General Cruz Villálon finds, next, that the Data Retention Directive is incompatible with the principle of proportionality in that it requires Member States to ensure that the data are retained for a period whose upper limit is set at two years.
|
L’avvocato Cruz Villalón considera inoltre la direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati incompatibile con il principio di proporzionalità in quanto essa impone agli Stati membri di garantire che i dati siano conservati per un periodo la cui durata massima è fissata in due anni.
|
16 |
He considers that the Directive pursues an ultimate objective that is perfectly legitimate, that is to say, the objective of ensuring that the data collected and retained are available for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, and may be regarded as appropriate and even, subject to the guarantees with which it should be coupled, as necessary for achieving that objective.
|
Egli ritiene che tale direttiva persegua un fine ultimo perfettamente legittimo, ossia garantire la disponibilità dei dati raccolti e conservati al fine di accertare, indagare e perseguire reati gravi e che essa possa essere considerata adeguata nonché, fatte salve le garanzie di cui deve essere munita, necessaria alla realizzazione di tale obiettivo ultimo.
|
17 |
However, the Advocate General has not found, in the various views submitted to the Court of Justice defending the proportionality of the data retention period, any sufficient justification for not limiting the data retention period to be established by the Member States to less than one year.
|
Nondimeno, l’avvocato generale non ha rinvenuto, nelle diverse prese di posizione sottoposte alla Corte a sostegno della proporzionalità della durata del periodo di conservazione dei dati, nessuna giustificazione sufficiente perché il periodo di conservazione dei dati che gli Stati membri devono fissare non possa restare entro un limite inferiore a un anno.
|
18 |
So far as concerns the temporal effects of the finding of invalidity, the Advocate General proposes, after weighing up the various competing interests, that the effects of a finding that the Directive is invalid should be suspended pending adoption by the EU legislature of the measures necessary to remedy the invalidity found to exist, but such measures must be adopted within a reasonable period.
|
Per quanto riguarda gli effetti nel tempo dell’invalidità constatata, l’avvocato generale propone, dopo aver ponderato i diversi interessi presenti nella specie, di sospendere gli effetti della constatazione dell’invalidità della direttiva per dar tempo al legislatore dell’Unione di adottare le misure necessarie per porre rimedio all’invalidità accertata, restando inteso che tali misure devono essere adottate entro un lasso di tempo ragionevole.
|
19 |
He observes, in this regard, that the relevance and even urgency of the ultimate objectives of the limitation on fundamental rights at issue are, on the one hand, not in doubt.
|
Egli rileva, da un lato che non vi sono dubbi circa la rilevanza e anche l’urgenza degli obiettivi ultimi della restrizione dei diritti fondamentali di cui trattasi.
|
20 |
The findings of invalidity, on the other hand, are of a very particular nature.
|
Dall’altro, i motivi di invalidità constatati sono di natura particolare.
|
21 |
First, the Directive is invalid as a result of the absence of sufficient regulation of the guarantees governing access to the data collected and retained and their use (quality of the law), an absence which nevertheless may have been corrected in the implementing measures adopted by the Member States.
|
Da una parte, la direttiva è invalida per effetto della mancanza di inquadramento sufficiente delle garanzie disciplinanti l’accesso ai dati raccolti e conservati e il loro impiego (qualità della legge), a cui tuttavia può essere stato posto rimedio nell’ambito delle misure di trasposizione adottate dagli Stati membri.
|
22 |
Secondly, the Member States have, in general, as is apparent from the information provided to the Court, exercised their powers with moderation with respect to the maximum period of data retention.
|
Dall’altro, come risulta dagli elementi forniti alla Corte, gli Stati membri si sono generalmente avvalsi con moderazione delle loro competenze per quanto attiene alla durata massima del periodo di conservazione dei dati.
|
23 |
Today’s Opinion is delivered in proceedings relating to two references for a preliminary ruling, made by the High Court of Ireland and the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court, Austria) respectively.
|
Le conclusioni in data odierna sono presentate nell’ambito di due procedimenti pregiudiziali iniziati, rispettivamente, dalla High Court of Ireland (Irlanda) e dal Verfassungsgerichtshof (Corte costituzionale, Austria).
|
24 |
The High Court must decide a case between Digital Rights Ireland Ltd – a limited liability company whose statutes specify that its object is to promote and protect civil rights and human rights, in particular in the field of modern communication technologies – and the Irish authorities.
|
La High Court deve dirimere una controversia tra Digital Rights Ireland Ltd, società a responsabilità limitata il cui scopo statutario è di promuovere e tutelare i diritti civili e i diritti dell’uomo, in particolare nel campo delle moderne tecnologie di comunicazione, e le autorità irlandesi.
|
25 |
In that case, Digital Rights, which states that it is the owner of a mobile phone, submits that the Irish authorities have unlawfully processed, retained and exercised control over data related to its communications.
|
Nell’ambito di tale controversia la Digital Rights, che dichiara di essere proprietaria di un telefono portatile, sostiene che le autorità irlandesi hanno illegittimamente trattato, conservato e controllato i dati relativi alle sue comunicazioni.
|
26 |
The Verfassungsgerichtshof must decide three cases brought by the Province of Carinthia, Mr Michael Seitlinger and 11 130 applicants respectively, who submit that the Austrian Law on telecommunications is contrary to the Austrian Constitution.
|
Il Verfassungsgerichtshof deve pronunciarsi su tre ricorsi proposti, rispettivamente, dal governo del Land della Carinzia, dal sig. Michael Seitlinger e da 11 130 ricorrenti, i quali sostengono che la legge austriaca sulle telecomunicazioni è contraria alla costituzione austriaca.
|
27 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
28 |
The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice.
|
Le conclusioni dell'avvocato generale non vincolano la Corte di giustizia.
|
29 |
It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible.
|
Il compito dell'avvocato generale consiste nel proporre alla Corte, in piena indipendenza, una soluzione giuridica nella causa per la quale è stato designato.
|
30 |
The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case.
|
I giudici della Corte cominciano adesso a deliberare in questa causa.
|
31 |
Judgment will be given at a later date.
|
La sentenza sarà pronunciata in una data successiva.
|
32 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
33 |
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
|
Il rinvio pregiudiziale consente ai giudici degli Stati membri, nell'ambito di una controversia della quale sono investiti, di interpellare la Corte in merito all’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione o alla validità di un atto dell’Unione.
|
34 |
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
|
La Corte non risolve la controversia nazionale.
|
35 |
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. |
Spetta al giudice nazionale risolvere la causa conformemente alla decisione della Corte. Tale decisione vincola egualmente gli altri giudici nazionali ai quali venga sottoposto un problema simile. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
According to the Advocate General, Mr Cruz Villalón, the Data Retention
Directive is incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights
He proposes, however, that the effects of the finding of invalidity
should be suspended in order to enable the EU legislature to adopt, within a
reasonable period, the measures necessary to remedy the invalidity found to
exist
In his Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón, takes
the view that the Data Retention Directive is as a whole incompatible with the
requirement, laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right must be
provided for by law.
According to the Advocate General, the Directive constitutes a serious
interference with the fundamental right of citizens to privacy, by laying down
an obligation on the providers of telephone or electronic communications
services to collect and retain traffic and location data for such
communications.
The Advocate General points out, in this regard, that the use of those data
may make it possible to create a both faithful and exhaustive map of a large
portion of a person’s conduct strictly forming part of his private life, or even
a complete and accurate picture of his private identity.
There is, moreover, an increased risk that the retained data might be used
for unlawful purposes which are potentially detrimental to privacy or, more
broadly, fraudulent or even malicious.
Indeed, the data are not retained by the public authorities, or even under
their direct control, but by the providers of electronic communications services
themselves.
Nor does the Directive provide that the data must be retained in the
territory of a Member State.
They can therefore be accumulated at indeterminate locations in cyberspace.
In the light of that serious interference, the Directive should, first of
all, have defined the fundamental principles which were to govern the
determination of the minimum guarantees for access to the data collected and
retained and their use.
However, the Directive – which indeed regulates neither access to the data
collected and retained nor their use – assigns the task of defining and
establishing those guarantees to the Member States.
Accordingly, the Directive does not comply with the requirement, laid down by
the Charter, that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right must be
provided for by law, as that requirement is more than just a purely formal one.
Thus, when the European Union legislature adopts, as in the case of the Data
Retention Directive, an act imposing obligations which constitute serious
interference with the fundamental rights of citizens of the Union, it must
assume its share of responsibility by defining at the very least the principles
which must govern the definition, establishment, application and review of
observance of the necessary guarantees.
It is this very regulation which makes it possible to assess the scope of
what the interference with the fundamental right entails in practical terms and
which may, therefore, determine whether or not the interference is
constitutionally acceptable.
Advocate General Cruz Villálon finds, next, that the Data Retention Directive
is incompatible with the principle of proportionality in that it requires Member
States to ensure that the data are retained for a period whose upper limit is
set at two years.
He considers that the Directive pursues an ultimate objective that is
perfectly legitimate, that is to say, the objective of ensuring that the data
collected and retained are available for the purpose of the investigation,
detection and prosecution of serious crime, and may be regarded as appropriate
and even, subject to the guarantees with which it should be coupled, as
necessary for achieving that objective.
However, the Advocate General has not found, in the various views submitted
to the Court of Justice defending the proportionality of the data retention
period, any sufficient justification for not limiting the data retention period
to be established by the Member States to less than one year.
So far as concerns the temporal effects of the finding of invalidity, the
Advocate General proposes, after weighing up the various competing interests,
that the effects of a finding that the Directive is invalid should be suspended
pending adoption by the EU legislature of the measures necessary to remedy the
invalidity found to exist, but such measures must be adopted within a reasonable
period.
He observes, in this regard, that the relevance and even urgency of the
ultimate objectives of the limitation on fundamental rights at issue are, on the
one hand, not in doubt.
The findings of invalidity, on the other hand, are of a very particular
nature.
First, the Directive is invalid as a result of the absence of sufficient
regulation of the guarantees governing access to the data collected and retained
and their use (quality of the law), an absence which nevertheless may have been
corrected in the implementing measures adopted by the Member States.
Secondly, the Member States have, in general, as is apparent from the
information provided to the Court, exercised their powers with moderation with
respect to the maximum period of data retention.
Today’s Opinion is delivered in proceedings relating to two references for a
preliminary ruling, made by the High Court of Ireland and the
Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court, Austria) respectively.
The High Court must decide a case between Digital Rights Ireland Ltd – a
limited liability company whose statutes specify that its object is to promote
and protect civil rights and human rights, in particular in the field of modern
communication technologies – and the Irish authorities.
In that case, Digital Rights, which states that it is the owner of a mobile
phone, submits that the Irish authorities have unlawfully processed, retained
and exercised control over data related to its communications.
The Verfassungsgerichtshof must decide three cases brought by the Province of
Carinthia, Mr Michael Seitlinger and 11 130 applicants respectively, who submit
that the Austrian Law on telecommunications is contrary to the Austrian
Constitution.
NOTE:
The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice.
It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete
independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible.
The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case.
Judgment will be given at a later date.
NOTE:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the
Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer
questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law
or the validity of a European Union act.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance
with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts
or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
|