O SCURTĂ ANALIZĂ CRITICĂ A DECIZIEI NR. 5027 DIN 26 OCTOMBRIE 2021 A ÎNALTEI CURŢI DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE CU PRIVIRE LA REGISTRUL DE EVIDENŢĂ A REZERVĂRILOR CLIENŢILOR
A BRIEF CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DECISION NO. 5027 FROM 26 OCTOBER 2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE REGARDING THE REGISTER OF CUSTOMER RESERVATIONS

Summary/Abstract: At the beginning of last year, Braşov Court of Appeal ruled in Sentence no. 16 of 26 February 2021 that Order no. 1493/2020 approving the application norms of Article 8 of Law no. 55/2020 on certain measures to prevent and combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, by regulating an obligation on economic agents to process personal data, thus directly restricting the exercise of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, but also the right to privacy, regulated by the Constitution, it is illegal, as this restriction can only be regulated by law, as a formal act of the Parliament. Following the appeal declared by the issuers of Joint Order no. 1493/2788/149/2020, the High Court of Cassation and Justice partially overturned the appealed sentence and, rejudging, it rejected as unfounded the action in annulment of the provisions regarding the register of customer reservations from the Norm approved by the mentioned order. The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that, contrary to the first instance, the contested order is legally issued according to Article 8 and 71 (2) of Law no. 55/2020, Order no. 1493/2020, which approves in concrete the application norms of Article 8 of Law no. 55/2020, not having the consequence of an illegal and unjustified restriction of the right to privacy by personal data processing, data that are mentioned in the register of customer reservations, thus overturning the decision of the first instance regarding the illegality of the order. As domestic remedies have been exhausted, the next natural step would be to lodge a complaint at the European Court of Human Rights, which is why this short study will analyze the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s ruling also in the light of a possible violation of Article 8 ECHR.

• Details
• Contents