통신정보보관제도의 정당성 - 유럽사법재판소 및 오스트리아 헌법재판소 판결의 관점에서 -
The Lawfulness of Data Retention from the Judgement of by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Austrian Constitutional Court
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Data Retention Directive(DRD) of EU(2006/24/EC) obliges the Member States to retain all the communication data(traffic data, location data, ect.) of users accumulated in connection with telecommunication or internet communication from the date of communication for at least six months and a maximum of two years independently of any suspicion for the fight against serious criminal offences such as terrorism. The Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) and the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH) declared the Data Retention Directive to be invalid because its related provisions violated the fundamental rights. However the both Courts consider that the DRD may be justified if it can meet the proportionality regarding data retention and access. The regulations about Data Retention in Korea relate to Article 13, 15-2 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act(Act No. 12229, Jan. 14, 2014), Article 21-4 of its Enforcement Decree. The outcome of the analysis about the austrian provisions regarding Data Retention shows that korean concerning regulations may not satisfy the criteria of the judgement of CJEU and the VfGH. A detailed research thereof should be required.
Abstract
The Data Retention Directive(DRD) of EU(2006/24/EC) obliges the Member States to retain all the communication data(traffic data, location data, ect.) of users accumulated in connection with telecommunication or internet communication from the date of communication for at least six months and a maximum of two years independently of any suspicion for the fight against serious criminal offences such as terrorism. The Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) and the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH) declared the Data Retention Directive to be invalid because its related provisions violated the fundamental rights. However the both Courts consider that the DRD may be justified if it can meet the proportionality regarding data retention and access. The regulations about Data Retention in Korea relate to Article 13, 15-2 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act(Act No. 12229, Jan. 14, 2014), Article 21-4 of its Enforcement Decree. The outcome of the analysis about the austrian provisions regarding Data Retention shows that korean concerning regulations may not satisfy the criteria of the judgement of CJEU and the VfGH. A detailed research thereof should be required.
참고문헌 (34)
- 박희영, (2010), 한국학술정보
- 사이버범죄협약 이행입법연구, "박희영", 대검찰청, 64~65 (2015)
- 민영성, "유럽사법재판소의 통신정보보관지침의 무효 판결과그 시사점", 법학연구, 56(4), pp.53~82 (2015), 법학연구소
- 박희영, "EU 통신데이터 보관지침을 전환한 회원국의 법제 동향", 최신외국법제정보, 2011(4) (2011), 한국법제연구원
- 박희영, "최신독일 판례연구" (2014), 로앤비
- 박희영, "유럽 공동체의 통신데이터의 보관에 관한 지침 DIRECTIVE 2006", 24, 선진상사법률연구, pp.2008, (43)[DOI]
- Becker Ulrich, "Art 52 GRC recital 4, EU-Kommentar" (2009), Nomos
- 1, "Das Grundrecht auf Datenschutz im Spannungsfeld zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit, Gutachten für den 18. Österreichischen Juristentag, Band I", pp.2012, Berka, Walter
- Bernsdorff, Norbert, "Art 7 recital 24, Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union" (2014), Nomos
- Borowsky, Martin, "Art 52 recital 21, Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union" (2014), Nomos
- Calliess, "EU-GRCharta Art 8GRC recital 9", ~
- Dohr, "DSG 2nd edn, § 1 annot. 19", ~
- Jarass, "Charta der Grundrechte der EU" (2013)
- EGV, "Art 7 GRC recital 10, EUV", pp.2011, Kingreen
- Klaushofer, "Überlegungen zur Reichweite des Fernmeldegeheimnisses, in FS Berka (2013) 114. Knecht in Schwarze Art 8 GRC recital 5", ~ (2013)
- Kolb, Brigit, "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (2011), Jan Sramek Verlag KG
- "Stellungnahme des zum Entwurf BMVIT-630.333/0001-III/PT2/2009, 119/SN-117/ME, 12"[URL]
- N. Raschauer, "GRC Kommentar (2014) Art 8 recital 13" (2014)
- Park, Hee-Young, "The Invalidation of the EU Data Retention Directive and its Implication for Korea", Dongguk Law Review, 6, pp.55~88 (2015)
- Tschohl, Christof, "Aktuelle Rechtsfragen der Internetnutzung Band 2" (2011)
- Souhrada-Kirchmayer, Eva, "Datenschutzrecht Jahrbuch 2014" (2014)
- Tschohl, Christof, "Datenschutzrecht Jahrbuch 2014" (2014)
- Wiederin, "Art 8 ECHR recital 122, Österreichisches Bundesverfassungsrecht" (2002)
- Flora, Margarette, "The Unlawfulness of Data Retention confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH)", EuCML, (3), pp.102~ (2015)
- Liebwald, Doris, "Die systematische Aufzeichnung der Daten über elektronische Kommunikation zu Überwachungszwecken", jusIT, (2) (2010)
- ECJ, "Opinion of Advocate General, 10.12.2013, C-293", 12, C-594, EuGRZ, pp.2014, 292~
- "Richtlinie 2006", 24, pp.2006, ~
- "VfGH Urteil vom 28.11.2012, G 47", 12, EuGRZ 2013, 94, 2012
- EuGH, "Urteil vom 29.7.2010, C-189", 09
- "Telekommunikationsgesetz 2003 (öTKG 2003) (BGBl) I 2011", 27
- "Strafprozessordnung (öStPO) (BGBl) I 2011", 33
- "Sicherheitspolizeigesetz (öSPG) (BGBl) I 2011", 33
- "Parliamentary Query Responses 14397/AB 24th legislative period"[URL]
- "1179/AB 25th legislative period"[URL]