U-I-411/06

Reference no.:
U-I-411/06
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, No. 68/2008 and OdlUS XVII, 43 | 19.06.2008
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2008:U.I.411.06
Abstract:
The specific nature of the Aviation Act regulation on the processing of personal data by which it pursues a precisely determined aim is of decisive importance when reviewing whether the purpose of processing personal data is determined in a clear and concrete enough manner, i.e. whether it is determined in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution. The constitutional requirement that the purpose of processing personal data must be provided by law does not also entail that the purpose must be determined explicitly.
 
The seventh paragraph of Article 128 of the Aviation Act is inconsistent with the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution, as it leaves open which personal data may (still) be processed. In view of the fact that the Aviation Act does not determine all personal data which may be collected from individuals and that such depends on the needs of managers of personal data in individual cases, the interference with information privacy cannot therefore be anticipated.
 
Due to the fact that declining consent that one’s personal data be collected has important consequences for individuals, the Constitutional Court finds that merely a written consent does not suffice for a constitutionally admissible interference.
 
Items 2 and 21 of the eighth paragraph of Article 128 of the Aviation Act are not consistent with the Constitution, as they allow the collecting and processing of not only data regarding one’s unique personal identification number (EMŠO) but also data regarding one’s tax number, thus two unique identifiers. The regulation which allows the processing of two unique identifiers does not pass the strict test of proportionality.
 
Items 11 and 12 of the eighth paragraph of Article 128 of the Aviation Act are not consistent with the Constitution, as they also allow processing of personal data which could contribute to achieving a pursued aim only in hypothetical cases. Thereby they excessively interfere with the information privacy of individuals.
 
Item 17 of the eighth paragraph of Article 128 of the Aviation Act is inconsistent with the Constitution, as it is not clear and precise enough. The requirement of the clarity and precision of statutory provisions is of particular importance in the sensitive area of information privacy. A statutory provision is inconsistent with the Constitution if thereof it does not follow precisely which personal data individuals must disclose.
 
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Date of application:
26.10.2006
Date of decision:
19.06.2008
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is inconsistent with the Constitution/statute establishment – it is not inconsistent with the Constitution/statute establishment – it is not inconsistent with the Constitution/statute
Document:
AN03111