News
Finding the balance between fighting crime and privacy: an Update to the use of Metadata in Criminal Prosecution
On October 13, 2023, the Portuguese Parliament approved an updated version of Law No. 32/2008, which had been declared unconstitutional in April 2022. The community is now waiting for a new preventive judgement of constitutionality on the use of communications metadata in criminal investigation. This Article offers an overview of key modifications and attempts to provide some insight into the content of the impending decision
I. Introduction
15 years after Law No. 32/2008 of July 17 (also called “the Metadata Law”) was enacted, discussion spurt in the Portuguese legal community regarding its compliance with current understandings of privacy-related constitutional values. While the statute had originally been enacted to transpose Directive (EU) No. 2006/24/EC, of March 15, into domestic Portuguese law, that European Directive was later found invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union . At the time, Portuguese authorities declined adapting the law accordingly, arguing the implementing law granted sufficient safeguards to appease the concerns expressed by the CJEU.
In April 2022, however, the Portuguese Constitutional Court came to agree with the CJEU, and declared articles 4, 6 and 9 of the implementing statute unconstitutional for breach of the constitutional principles of proportionality and necessity, materialized in an interference in fundamental rights . Specifically, these articles required telecommunications and electronic communications service providers to retain and store all traffic and location data relating to all communications or attempts thereof, for a period of one year, with view to their potential use for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of serious crimes.
On October 13, 2023, the Portuguese Parliament approved an updated version of Law No. 32/2008, which was expected to correct the flaws identified by the Constitutional Court already a year and a half ago. Not convinced of the legislator’s success in that matter, however, after receiving the Proposal for promulgation, the President of the Portuguese Republic directed the statute to the Constitutional Court seeking a preventive review on the use of traffic and location data in criminal investigation. The community is now waiting for that judgment.
II. Background: why was it unconstitutional and what was the government expected to improve?
Three lines of criticism were developed by the Constitutional Court in April 2022 :
- the right of the data subject to control and audit the processing of his/her data would be compromised by the fact that it was not foreseen that data retention had to take place in an EU Member State;
- the undifferentiated and generalized obligation to retain all traffic and location data concerning all individuals disproportionately restricts the rights to privacy and information self-determination;
- By not providing for notification to the data subject that the retained data has been accessed by criminal investigation authorities, it could deprive data subjects of any effective control over the lawfulness and regularity of access to their data, in violation of the rights to informative self-determination and to effective judicial protection.
In short, the Constitutional Court deemed the mandatory generalized retention of all available communications data concerning all individuals for criminal prosecution purposes as sanctioning legal presumptions of guilt, in arguable violation of constitutional principles.
III. The new Law: What’s New on the Menu?
In light of the Constitutional Court's decision, it was now for Government and Parliament to find a balance between fighting crime and respecting citizens’ privacy.
In that context, the Portuguese legislator could have chosen to follow the criteria issued by the CJEU providing general and discriminatory retention of traffic data may occur only if there are concrete and specifically determined grounds to suspect the commission of a serious crime. We can anticipate that this was not how the Portuguese Government saw fit to legislate.
Instead, the Proposal provides:
- Traffic data, date and location data, as well as metadata that enables the identification of the communication service users (both sender and receiver) and their devices are still subject to mandatory retention;
- This retention obligation, however, no longer falls on law enforcement agencies, but rather in operators of publicly available electronic communications networks and public communications networks (“Network operators”);
- The intervention of a judge is no longer necessary – operators must transfer the retained data to law enforcement authorities when requested by the District Attorney’s Office, or one of its Prosecutors;
- Data that enables the identification of the individuals engaging in communication, as well as their IP addresses and connections must be retained for at least a year, by the operators, for the purpose of their potential use in criminal prosecution;
- While the remainder of the data collected (regarding, e.g., traffic and location) must first be retained for three months, upon which the retention will be automatically extended to six months, unless the data subject opposes (although no reference is made to how this prerogative should be exercised), and after which the retention may again be extended for six more months by decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, upon request by the General District Attorney (having as effect that this data can also be retained for up to a year);
- Whenever applicable, terms in the statute shall have the same construction as homonymous terms in the GDPR;
- Network operators may not access the data they retain other than to fulfil legal or contractual obligations;
- The judicial authorization to extend the retention of communications data should be notified to the data subject within 10 days, but it may not be whenever the Court and the DA’s office agree such notice could harm an undergoing investigation.
IV. Going Forward: Predictions on a Constitutional Judgment
It is never a good idea to attempt to predict how judges (let alone a collective of judges) will decide on a specific matter. Legal analysis, however, provides tools that enable, at least, the putting forward of predictive considerations.
The unconstitutionality judgment of April 2022 was not entirely uncontroversial – some dissident voices still claimed the legitimacy and lawfulness of Law No. 32/2008. The majority decided, however, otherwise and it does not appear that the new government Proposal will be considered to have addressed the issues as raised by that majority.
On the one hand, switching the subjective scope of the retention obligation from public law enforcement to operators of publicly available electronic communications networks (who are, it should be noted, forced to transfer that data to law enforcement upon request by a DA) does not represent a lesser intrusion into individuals privacy – their data is still being retained, for under-determinate purposes, and easily accessible to law enforcement for broad “criminal prosecution.” On the other hand, the “selection” of data that should be retained is not less broad than before, nor is its retention significantly reduced in time (since it can still all be retained for up to a year). Finally, the concern with the applicability of the GDPR appears to be exhausted through reference to the use of its definitions when interpreting the new law.
Overall, it appears the Portuguese legislator is still unconvinced of the merits of the decision declaring invalid the previous regulation, and is attempting to enact a similar statute. Will they be able to?
Article provided by INPLP member: Ricardo Henriques (Abreu Advogados, Portugal)
Co authors: José Maria Alves Pereira and Matilde Ortins de Bettencourt
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010