Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Proprietaryandnon-proprietarynatureoftheright...
nationalauthoritiesthelibertyofchoosingtheformandmeans.TeRegulation,
however,isgenerallyapplicable,totallybindinganddirectlyenforceableinall
MemberStates6.OncetheGDPRentersintoforce,theroleofnationallegislators
isgoingtobelimited,andnamelytothemereguaranteeingandsupervisingthe
applicabilityoftheGDPR7.TedirectapplicabilityofaEUregulationmeansthat
itcanbecarriedintoeffectandenforcedinfavouroforagainstitsaddressees
regardlessofanyadjustmentmeasureswhatsoever(...).Itistruethat,incaseofany
interpretationdifculties,anationaladministrationmaybeforcedtoadoptsome
detailedrulesonhowtoapplyaEUregulationsothatanydoubtsraisedcouldbe
explained,butitmaydosoonlyinsofarassuchrulescomplywiththerelevant
provisionsofEUlaw,withnobindingrulesoninterpretationbeingallowedtobe
imposedbynationalauthorities8.
Atthesametime,theEUlegislatorsstronglyarguethatEUMemberStatesarenot
abletosufcientlyachieveontheirowntheobjectiveoftheGDPRimplementation
toensurecomparabledegreesofprotectionforindividualsandthefreeflowof
6
TeessenceofEURegulationsisthedirectefectthereof,whichsignifiesthatitisthe
rulesstipulatedinsuchRegulationsthatformthelegalbasisforcasespendingbeforeMember
Stateauthorities,butnotprovisionsofanynationallegislation(PLitwiński,JBarta,JKawecki,
Commentarytoarticle99oftheGDPR[in:]RozporządzenieUEwsprawieochronyosób
fizycznychwzwiązkuzprzetwarzaniemdanychosobowychiswobodnymprzepływemtakic
danych.Commentary,PLitwiński(ed.),Warsaw2018).Tedirectefectoftheprovisionsof
EUlawmeansthatapartyreferringtoaspecificprovisionoftheGDPRisentitledtoinvokethe
applicabilitythereofbeforeanyMemberStatecourtbothinprivateandpubliclawlitigation
(JudgmentoftheEuropeanCourtofJusticeof27September2001incaseC-63/99theQueen
vstheSecretaryoftheState,ECLI:EU:C:2001:488;JudgmentoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice
27September2001incaseC-257/99BarkociandMalik,ECLI:EU:C:2001:491).
7
Whenreviewingnationallegislativebillstopreparethelegalsystemfortheimplementa-
tionofthepersonaldataprotectionreform,theInspectorGeneralforPersonalDataProtection
(IGPDP)stronglynotedthatthesubmittedbillsCshouldcontainnothingbutprovisionsaimed
atpreparingthenationallegalorderfortheapplicabilityofRegulation2016/679andanew
PersonalDataProtectionAct’
,andaccordinglyitisnotallowabletodrafsolutionsthatdeviate
fromthosestipulatedintheGDPR(IGPDP’scommentsonthedrafPersonalDataProtec-
tionActEnforcementRegulationsandPersonalDataProtectionActattachedasAddendum
1and2,respectively,totheIGPDP’sLettertotheMinisterofDigitalAfairsof20October2017,
http://IGPDP.gov.pl/pl/1520280/10202
).Atthesametime,theGovernmentCentreforLegislation
hasanalysedthatthenationallegislationrelatingtopersonaldataprotectionincludessome
800legalactsthat,oncetheyhavebeenthoroughlyrevised,needtoberepealedoramended
(EBielak-Jomaa,DLubasz,Polskaieuropejskareformaochronydanychosobowych,EBielak-
Jomaa(ed.),Warsaw2016,Legalis).
8
JudgmentoftheEuropeanCourtofJusticez31January1978,C-94/77,FratelliZerboneSnc
vsAmministrazionedellefinanzedelloStato,ECLI:EU:C:1978:17,quotedin:KMorawska,Rola
orazstatus…,Warsaw2017,Legalis.
9
