This web site is no longer maintained and may be outdated. It is retained primarily for historical reasons.

Implementatie bewaarplicht Cyprus ook ongrondwettig

De implementatie van de bewaarplicht in Cyprus is ook ongrondwettig, zo blijkt uit een uitspraak van de Hoge Raad. 

EDRi schrijft in het artikel Data retention law provisions declared unlawful in Cyprus:

The Cyprus Supreme Court decided on 1 February 2011 that some of the provisions of Law 183 (I) / 2007 on disclosure of telecommunications data are unlawful, as they breach the Cyprus Constitution and its jurisprudence, as revealed by the daily Cyprus Mail.

Law 183 (I) / 2007 (Retention of Telecommunication Data for Purposes of Investigation of Serious Criminal Offences Law of 2007) was adopted by Cyrpus on 31 December 2007 as the national implementation of the EU Data retention directive.

In the case brought to the Supreme Court, four people claimed that Articles 4 and 5 of the national law, that provided police forces access to the retained data, were unlawful. The court considered that the articles in question go beyond the provisions of the EU Directive which does not address the issue of access to the retained data. Therefore, the court considered it may check the constitutionality of these articles, especially in relation with Art 15 of the Cyprus Constitution (right to privacy) and article 17 (confidentiality of communications).

Based on the Cyprus Constitution, and jurisprudence from itself and from the EctHR, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling regarding the legality of court orders issued for the disclosure of telecommunications data by the district courts of Nicosia, Limassol and Larnaca at the request of police investigating serious crimes. The orders concerned the four complainants that claimed a breach of privacy and confidentiality of their communications.

The court considered that three of the four court orders for disclosing telephone numbers and calls were illegal and should be annulled. In the case of the fourth person the case was rejected, since the person was imprisoned and banned for using a mobile phone.