Find out today what the legal world will be talking about tomorrow.
The Federal Constitutional Court again rejected two applications to issue a temporary injunction to suspend the Act on Establishing a Storage Obligation and a Maximum Storage Period for Traffic Data (Federal Constitutional Court, March 26, 2017, Cases 1 BvR 3156/15, 1 BvR 141/16).
Even considering the latest case law of the European Court of Justice, the constitutional assessment of the “data retention” provided for in the aforementioned law is not possible in temporary injunction proceedings, the court argued. The ECJ recently declared the general and indiscriminate data retention inadmissible (ECJ, December 21, 2016, C-203/15 and C-698/15).
As the law is thus not being suspended, providers of publicly available telecommunications services for end-users will be required from July 2017 to retain any traffic data for ten weeks and to protect them against unauthorized access through technical and organizational measures.
Practical tip:
About ten constitutional appeals are currently pending against the obligation to data retention. It remains to be seen how the Federal Constitutional Court will decide in these main proceedings. In this respect, the rejection of the motions for temporary injunctions does not carry any prejudicial effect.
As the law is thus not being suspended, providers of publicly available telecommunications services for end-users will be required from July 2017 to retain any traffic data for ten weeks and to protect them against unauthorized access through technical and organizational measures.
Practical tip:
About ten constitutional appeals are currently pending against the obligation to data retention. It remains to be seen how the Federal Constitutional Court will decide in these main proceedings. In this respect, the rejection of the motions for temporary injunctions does not carry any prejudicial effect.
Share in
Authors
