{"id":8836,"date":"2022-04-23T14:49:12","date_gmt":"2022-04-23T14:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/?p=8836"},"modified":"2022-04-23T16:05:06","modified_gmt":"2022-04-23T16:05:06","slug":"mbrojtja-e-te-dhenave-personale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/mbrojtja-e-te-dhenave-personale\/","title":{"rendered":"Mbrojtja e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Mbrojtja e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb nga tematikat m\u00eb t\u00eb nxehta koh\u00ebt e fundit jo vet\u00ebm n\u00eb Shqip\u00ebri por edhe n\u00eb bot\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>N\u00ebse do t\u2019i referoheshim ngjarjeve t\u00eb fundit n\u00eb vendin ton\u00eb, do t\u00eb evidentonim nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb rastesh t\u00eb shkeljes s\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale. Shumica e pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebseve shqiptar u p\u00ebrfshin\u00eb n\u00eb dhjetor t\u00eb vitit t\u00eb kaluar n\u00eb skandalin e publikimit te databaz\u00ebs s\u00eb pagave. Rrjedhja e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale vijoi m\u00eb tej me publikimin e targave t\u00eb makinave. Mediat shqiptare gjithmon\u00eb e m\u00eb shum\u00eb transmetojn\u00eb programe televizive, ku marrin pjes\u00eb gazetar\u00eb investigativ\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebt gjat\u00eb debateve n\u00eb studio televizive nga analizat q\u00eb b\u00ebjn\u00eb l\u00ebn\u00eb t\u00eb kuptojn\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyre eksplicite q\u00eb u jan\u00eb v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dispozicion fashikujt gjyq\u00ebsor dhe shikuesit apo pal\u00ebs n\u00eb pro\u00e7es shpesh i lind pyetja: A kan\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb gazetar\u00ebt t\u00eb ken\u00eb akses n\u00eb akte pro\u00e7eduriale, q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebna personale?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ndaj objekt i analiz\u00ebs son\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast do t\u00eb jet\u00eb nj\u00eb vendim i fundit i Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane t\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb lidhje me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e aksesit t\u00eb gazetar\u00ebve n\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat personale t\u00eb fashikullit gjyq\u00ebsor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00c7\u00ebshtja lind n\u00eb Holland\u00eb ku Z i p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuar nga X u intervistuan nga nj\u00eb gazetar n\u00eb kuad\u00ebr t\u00eb pro\u00e7esit gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb mbajtur n\u00eb 2018 p\u00ebrpara seksionit t\u00eb <a>\u00e7<\/a>\u00ebshtjeve gjyq\u00ebsore administrative t\u00eb Raad van State (K\u00ebshilli i Shtetit). Gjat\u00eb bised\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre, X konstatoi se ky gazetar dispononte dokumente nga dosja e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes n\u00eb fjal\u00eb, duke p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb dokumente q\u00eb kishte hartuar vet\u00eb dhe q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbanin t\u00eb dh\u00ebna personale, ku n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti tregonin emrin, adres\u00ebn dhe numrin e identifikimit t\u00eb Z. Gazetari i tregoi se k\u00ebto dokumente i ishin v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dispozicion nga seksioni i \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve gjyq\u00ebsore administrative t\u00eb Raad van State (K\u00ebshilli i Shtetit) si pjes\u00eb e t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb aksesit n\u00eb dosjen e hetimit q\u00eb <a>ky seksion <\/a>u jep gazetar\u00ebve. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>N\u00eb fakt kjo gj\u00eb i ishte konfirmuar dhe m\u00eb von\u00eb X-it nga kryetari i seksionit t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve gjyq\u00ebsore administrative t\u00eb Raad van State, i cili e kishte sqaruar se ishte pjes\u00eb e praktik\u00ebs s\u00eb pun\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre v\u00ebnia n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb gazetar\u00ebve t\u00eb dokumentave, q\u00eb tu mund\u00ebsonin atyre ndjekjen e seancave. Nd\u00ebr k\u00ebto dokumenta q\u00eb viheshin n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb gazetar\u00ebve p\u00ebrfshiheshin dokumentat e dosjes gjyq\u00ebsore si: nj\u00eb kopje e k\u00ebrkes\u00eb padis\u00eb, nj\u00eb kopje e deklarat\u00ebs s\u00eb mbrojtjes, apo nj\u00eb kopje e vendimit t\u00eb kontestuar t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs. K\u00ebto dokumente duhej t\u00eb shkat\u00ebrroheshin n\u00eb fund t\u00eb dit\u00ebs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Nisur nga k\u00ebto rrethana X dhe Z i k\u00ebrkuan Autoriteit persoonsgegevens (Autoritetit p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave Personale) t\u00eb adaptoj\u00eb ndaj Raad van State masa aplikimi t\u00eb normave n\u00eb lidhje me mbrojtjen e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale. Sipas pretendimeve t\u00eb tyre Raad van State kishte shkelur rregulloren 2016\/679 <a>(GDPR)<\/a>, me lejimin e gazetar\u00ebve t\u00eb ken\u00eb akses n\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat e tyre personale nga dokumentat e dosjes gjyq\u00ebsore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>N\u00eb lidhje me k\u00ebto pretendime, Autoriteit persoonsgegevens (Autoritetit p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave Personale) theksoi se duke iu referuar nenit 55, paragrafi 3 t\u00eb rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR), nuk ishte kompetente t\u00eb kontrollonte operacionet e p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale t\u00eb kryera nga Raad van State (K\u00ebshilli i Shtetit). M\u00eb pas, k\u00ebrkesat e X dhe Z ia p\u00ebrcolli Komisionit p\u00ebr Mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave Personale p\u00ebr gjyqtar\u00ebt administrativ, i cili nga ana e tij ia p\u00ebrcolli Presidentit t\u00eb seksionit t\u00eb <a>\u00e7<\/a>\u00ebshtjeve gjyq\u00ebsore administrative t\u00eb Raad van State (K\u00ebshilli i Shtetit). Kryetari i seksionit t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve gjyq\u00ebsore administrative t\u00eb Raad van State (K\u00ebshilli i Shtetit) analizoi pretendimet e X dhe Z dhe pasi mori mendimin e Komisionit p\u00ebr Mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave Personale p\u00ebr gjyqtar\u00ebt administrativ p\u00ebrcaktoi nj\u00eb politik\u00eb t\u00eb re t\u00eb aksesit n\u00eb dokumentet e dosjeve gjyq\u00ebsore, e cila u publikua n\u00eb faqen e internetit t\u00eb Raad van State (K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Shtetit). X dhe Z kund\u00ebrshtuan, p\u00ebrpara Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Gjykata e Holand\u00ebs Q\u00ebndrore), vendimin me t\u00eb cilin Autoriteit persoonsgegevens (Autoritetit p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave Personale) kishte refuzuar kompetenc\u00ebn e saj p\u00ebr t\u00eb njohur k\u00ebrkesat e tyre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sipas k\u00ebsaj gjykate, fakti i dh\u00ebnies nj\u00eb gazetari akses n\u00eb dokumentet e nj\u00eb dosjeje gjyq\u00ebsore q\u00eb p\u00ebrmban t\u00eb dh\u00ebna personale dhe i v\u00ebnies n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb tij p\u00ebrkoh\u00ebsisht, p\u00ebrb\u00ebn \u201cp\u00ebrpunim\u201d t\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale, n\u00eb zbatim t\u00eb nenit 4, pika 2, t\u00eb rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR), p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin, n\u00eb rastin konkret, X dhe Z nuk do t\u00eb kishin r\u00ebn\u00eb dakord. P\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar n\u00ebse Autoriteit persoonsgegevens (Autoriteti p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave Personale) ishte n\u00eb fakt jokompetent p\u00ebr t\u00eb vendosur mbi pretendimet e X dhe Z, gjykata shtron pyetjen n\u00eb lidhje me interpretimin q\u00eb duhet t&#8217;i jepet nenit 55, paragrafi 3 t\u00eb asaj rregulloreje, e cila parashikon se autoriteti mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb kompetent p\u00ebr t\u00eb kontrolluar operacionet e p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb kryera nga autoritetet gjyq\u00ebsore q\u00eb veprojn\u00eb &#8220;n\u00eb ushtrimin e funksioneve t\u00eb tyre gjyq\u00ebsore&#8221;.&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kontekst, Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Gjykata Q\u00ebndrore e Holand\u00ebs) vendosi t\u00eb pezulloj\u00eb pro\u00e7esin dhe t&#8217;i drejtoj\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane t\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb pyetjen n\u00ebse neni 55, paragrafi 3, i rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR) duhet t\u00eb interpretohet n\u00eb kuptimin q\u00eb mund\u00ebsia p\u00ebr t\u00eb v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb gazetar\u00ebve kopje t\u00eb akteve pro\u00e7eduriale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebna personale hyn n\u00eb funksionet gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre autoriteteve. Gjithashtu Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb iu k\u00ebrkua t\u00eb qart\u00ebsoj\u00eb n\u00ebse element\u00ebt e m\u00ebposht\u00ebm ishin rilevant\u00eb n\u00eb dh\u00ebnien e p\u00ebrgjigjes s\u00eb m\u00ebsip\u00ebrme. K\u00ebto element\u00eb kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me: faktin n\u00ebse ushtrimi i kontrollit nga autoriteti mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs komb\u00ebtar mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave ndikon n\u00eb pavar\u00ebsin\u00eb e pro\u00e7esit vendimmarr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjyqtarit n\u00eb raste konkrete; me faktin n\u00ebse natyra dhe q\u00ebllimi i p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave \u00ebsht\u00eb informimi i nj\u00eb gazetari p\u00ebr t&#8217;i mund\u00ebsuar atij t\u00eb jap\u00eb nj\u00eb pasqyr\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb mir\u00eb t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore publike n\u00eb nj\u00eb pro\u00e7es gjyq\u00ebsor, duke ndihmuar n\u00eb mbrojtjen e interesit p\u00ebr publicitetin dhe transparenc\u00ebn e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb; n\u00eb faktin n\u00ebse ka nj\u00eb baz\u00eb ligjore t\u00eb qart\u00eb n\u00eb lidhje me p\u00ebrpunimin e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave n\u00eb kontekstin e ligjit komb\u00ebtar. Z e vijoi betej\u00ebn e tij ligjore duke k\u00ebrkuar nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera edhe pavlefshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e paragrafit 3 t\u00eb nenit 55 t\u00eb rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR), k\u00ebrkes\u00eb e cila nuk u pranua nga gjykata me argumentimin se duke iu referuar pik\u00ebs 20 t\u00eb Rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR), legjislatori i BE-s\u00eb, duke miratuar nenin 55, paragrafi 3 t\u00eb asaj rregulloreje, nuk ka pasur p\u00ebr q\u00ebllim t\u00eb heq\u00eb nga \u00e7far\u00ebdolloj kontrolli operacionet e p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb kryera nga autoritetet gjyq\u00ebsore &#8220;n\u00eb ushtrimin e funksioneve t\u00eb tyre gjyq\u00ebsore&#8221;, por vet\u00ebm ka p\u00ebrjashtuar q\u00eb kontrolli i operacioneve t\u00eb tilla t&#8217;i besohet nj\u00eb autoriteti t\u00eb jasht\u00ebm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Duke iu referuar edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs, kostante mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb tem\u00eb (vendimi i dt. 6 tetor 2020, Jobcenter Krefeld, C-181\/19) p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar q\u00ebllimin e nocionit t\u00eb operacioneve t\u00eb p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb kryera nga autoritetet gjyq\u00ebsore n\u00eb ushtrimin e funksioneve t\u00eb tyre gjyq\u00ebsore, n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me nenin 55, paragrafi 3 t\u00eb rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR), duhet t\u00eb rikujtohet se interpretimi i nj\u00eb dispozite t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian, duhet t\u00eb marr\u00eb parasysh edhe kontekstin n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin b\u00ebn pjes\u00eb dhe q\u00ebllimet e ndjekura nga legjislacioni t\u00eb cilit i p\u00ebrket. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim, nga neni 55 i rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR) del qart\u00eb se ky nen ka p\u00ebr q\u00ebllim p\u00ebrcaktimin e kompetenc\u00ebs n\u00eb lidhje me kontrollin e p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale dhe, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti, kufizimin e kompetenc\u00ebs q\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb autoritetit mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs komb\u00ebtar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ndaj me q\u00ebllim ruajtjen e pavar\u00ebsin\u00eb s\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsorit n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrave t\u00eb tij gjyq\u00ebsore, duke p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb pro\u00e7esin e vendimmarrjes neni 20 i rregullores 2016\/679 (GDPR) specifikon se kontrolli i operacioneve t\u00eb p\u00ebrpunimit t\u00eb kryera nga autoritetet gjyq\u00ebsore &#8220;n\u00eb ushtrimin e funksioneve t\u00eb tyre gjyq\u00ebsore&#8221; duhet t&#8217;i besohet organeve t\u00eb ve<a>\u00e7<\/a>anta brenda sistemit gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb shtetit an\u00ebtar n\u00eb fjal\u00eb dhe jo autoritetit t\u00eb tij mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>N\u00eb fakt, duke u bazuar n\u00eb k\u00ebrkesat e t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb BE-s\u00eb p\u00ebr respektimin e garancive t\u00eb pavar\u00ebsis\u00eb dhe paan\u00ebsis\u00eb, ruajtja e pavar\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsorit presupozon, n\u00eb p\u00ebrgjith\u00ebsi, q\u00eb funksionet gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb ushtrohen n\u00eb autonomi t\u00eb plot\u00eb, pa iu n\u00ebnshtruar ndonj\u00eb kufizimi hierarkik ose pa marr\u00eb urdhra ose udh\u00ebzime nga ndonj\u00eb burim, n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb mbrohen nga nd\u00ebrhyrjet ose presionet e jashtme q\u00eb mund t\u00eb c\u00ebnojn\u00eb pavar\u00ebsin\u00eb e gjykimit t\u00eb an\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb saj dhe t\u00eb ndikojn\u00eb n\u00eb vendimet e tyre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye n\u00eb vendimin e saj t\u00eb dt. 24 mars 2022, C-245\/20, Gjykata deklaroi:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Neni 55, paragrafi 3 i rregullores (BE) 2016\/679 (GDPR)<\/strong> <strong>t\u00eb Parlamentit Evropian dhe K\u00ebshillit Evropian dt. 27 prill 2016 lidhur me mbrojtjen e personave fizik n\u00eb lidhje me p\u00ebrpunimin e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale, si dhe p\u00ebr l\u00ebvizjen e lir\u00eb t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave dhe q\u00eb shfuqizon Direktiv\u00ebn 95\/46\/KE (Rregullorja e P\u00ebrgjithshme p\u00ebr Mbrojtjen e t\u00eb Dh\u00ebnave), duhet interpretuar n\u00eb kuptimin se fakti q\u00eb nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb vendos p\u00ebrkoh\u00ebsisht dokumentet e nj\u00eb pro\u00e7esi gjyq\u00ebsor, q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebna personale, n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb gazetar\u00ebve, n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb t&#8217;i lejoj\u00eb ata t\u00eb raportojn\u00eb m\u00eb plot\u00ebsisht mbi zhvillimin e nj\u00eb pro<\/strong>\u00e7<strong>edimi t\u00eb till\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb pjes\u00eb e ushtrimit t\u00eb \u201cfunksioneve gjyq\u00ebsore\u201d t\u00eb asaj gjykate sipas kuptimit t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj dispozite.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Duke iu referuar vendimit t\u00eb analizuar, sipas mendimit ton\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e drejt\u00eb q\u00eb gjykata t\u00eb g\u00ebzoj\u00eb funksionin e dh\u00ebnies s\u00eb aksesit gazetar\u00ebve n\u00eb dosjet gjyq\u00ebsore, por gazetar\u00ebt nga ana e tyre duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjegjsh\u00ebm n\u00eb p\u00ebrdorimin e informacioneve apo t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale t\u00eb grumbulluara dhe t\u2019i p\u00ebrdorin ato n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb nj\u00eb raportimi profesional pa d\u00ebmtuar hetimin gjyq\u00ebsor.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mbrojtja e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave personale \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb nga tematikat m\u00eb t\u00eb nxehta koh\u00ebt e fundit jo vet\u00ebm n\u00eb Shqip\u00ebri por edhe n\u00eb bot\u00eb..<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8834,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8836"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8836\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8841,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8836\/revisions\/8841"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}