A ‘no’ to data retention in the Netherlands

Sascha van Schendel

doi:10.21552/EDPL/2015/2/12

A ‘no’ to data retention in the Netherlands

Sascha van Schendel

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Case C/09/480009 / KG ZA 14/1575, Privacy First cs vs. the Dutch State, 11 March 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:2498The summary proceedings judge of The Hague has declared the ‘Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens’ non-binding. This law obliges providers of telephone services and internet services to store traffic data and location data of the users. The law infringes the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The judge considers this infringement not be limited to what is strictly necessary (the official head note translated by the author).

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	153-156
Number of pages	4
Journal	European Data Protection Law Review
Volume	1
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.21552/EDPL/2015/2/12
Publication status	Published - 2015
Externally published	Yes

Erasmus Sectorplan

Sector plan SSH-Breed

Access to Document

10.21552/EDPL/2015/2/12

A 'No' to Data Retention in the NetherlandsFinal published version, 266 KBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

https://edpl.lexxion.eu/article/EDPL/2015/2/12

Cite this

@article{855dae0ae37a4546afa06a8a367fe6b8,

title = "A {\textquoteleft}no{\textquoteright} to data retention in the Netherlands",

abstract = "Case C/09/480009 / KG ZA 14/1575, Privacy First cs vs. the Dutch State, 11 March 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:2498The summary proceedings judge of The Hague has declared the {\textquoteleft}Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens{\textquoteright} non-binding. This law obliges providers of telephone services and internet services to store traffic data and location data of the users. The law infringes the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The judge considers this infringement not be limited to what is strictly necessary (the official head note translated by the author).",

author = "{van Schendel}, Sascha",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.21552/EDPL/2015/2/12",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "153--156",

journal = "European Data Protection Law Review",

issn = "2364-2831",

publisher = "Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A ‘no’ to data retention in the Netherlands

AU - van Schendel, Sascha

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Case C/09/480009 / KG ZA 14/1575, Privacy First cs vs. the Dutch State, 11 March 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:2498The summary proceedings judge of The Hague has declared the ‘Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens’ non-binding. This law obliges providers of telephone services and internet services to store traffic data and location data of the users. The law infringes the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The judge considers this infringement not be limited to what is strictly necessary (the official head note translated by the author).

AB - Case C/09/480009 / KG ZA 14/1575, Privacy First cs vs. the Dutch State, 11 March 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:2498The summary proceedings judge of The Hague has declared the ‘Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens’ non-binding. This law obliges providers of telephone services and internet services to store traffic data and location data of the users. The law infringes the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The judge considers this infringement not be limited to what is strictly necessary (the official head note translated by the author).

U2 - 10.21552/EDPL/2015/2/12

DO - 10.21552/EDPL/2015/2/12

M3 - Article

SN - 2364-2831

VL - 1

SP - 153

EP - 156

JO - European Data Protection Law Review

JF - European Data Protection Law Review

IS - 2

ER -

A ‘no’ to data retention in the Netherlands

Abstract

Erasmus Sectorplan

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this