Requests for data under Data Rentention Directive doubled in four years

Over four years, EU countries almost doubled the number of requests for data under the legislation that was yesterday struck down by the European Court of Justice.

Countries say the information it collects under the directive can be vital in combating crime.

The Data Retention Directive may be revised, taking into account the criticisms of the court and the fact it did not rule against retaining data in itself but found the blanket nature of the legislation breached the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Introduced in the aftermath of bombings in London and Madrid, it was shaped by justice ministers from EU member states without the input of the European Parliament. It was brought into force by the Lisbon Treaty.

It meant any new rule would automatically have to be tested to ensure it struck the right balance between protecting people’s privacy and the need to fight crime. It would need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and have to be jointly approved by member states and MEPs.

The European Commission said data retention takes place in most member states. which say it “provides valuable leads and evidence in the prevention and prosecution of crime and ensuring criminal justice. Its use has resulted in convictions for criminal offences which, without data retention, might never have been solved. It has also resulted in acquittals of innocent persons.”

Requests for data almost doubled over four years, with figures provided by 17 member states showing a surge from 1.56m requests in 2008 to 2.66m in 2012. Data related to mobile phones is the most requested type.

Under the directive, data related to mobile phones, telephony, internet access, and email could be handed over to authorities, when requested, for between six months and two years. It identifies type of communication, sender, recipient, date, time and duration (of a call), and location.

Anna Buchta, the head of litigation and legislative policy at the European Data Protection Supervisors office, pointed out that the ECJ said retention of data in itself was not contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, since the law did not give access to the content of the communications.

But the ECJ said the blanket collection of data was too wide, covered everyone whether they gave cause for suspicion or not, gave open access to the information without the oversight of a court, and that there was no consideration given to whether the information being collected could be useful or not.

Ms Buchta said this should be taken into account for any future legislation.