Politische Parteien und europäischer Datenschutz

Democracy requires transparency from those who hold power. In a party-based democracy, this principle must also apply to the activities of political parties. At the same time, European data protection law establishes confidentiality as the default. Conflicts are therefore inevitable. Fabian M. Müller explores ways of resolving these tensions.

Democracy requires transparency from those who hold power. In a democracy that is hardly conceivable without political parties, this transparency must also extend to their activities. At the same time, the data protection regime harmonised across the European Union establishes the confidentiality of personal data as the default, making conflicts inevitable. Fabian Müller approaches the resolution of these conflicts from two perspectives.

First, he addresses the question of competence: whenever the European Union regulates the data protection obligations of political parties, it also affects the functioning of national democracies. Whether such regulation is covered by the Union's data protection competences is open to serious doubt in light of the wording of the Treaties and the obligation to respect the national identities of the Member States.

Second, the author examines a range of practical problems. Under the GDPR, the publication of photographs taken at party conferences is prima facie prohibited because such images may reveal the political opinions of those depicted and therefore involve particularly sensitive personal data. Likewise, the extensive exchange of data between the legally independent branches of political parties appears, at first glance, to lack an adequate legal basis. Moreover, while the GDPR safeguards the confidentiality of personal data, it also grants data subjects a right of access to information about the data processed by others. This raises the question of the extent to which access requests may be used to uncover the electoral strategies of political competitors vying for leading positions. Finally, fines imposed on political parties affect not only the parties themselves but also political life more broadly, prompting the question of how such fines should be calibrated.

Einleitung
I. Anlass der Untersuchung - II. Eine Übersicht: Datenverarbeitungen durch politische Parteien - III. Prima facie: Anwendbarkeit der DSGVO? - IV. Raum für eine Sonderdogmatik? - V. Clash of Systems: Demokratische Öffentlichkeit vs. Datenschutzrechtliche Vertraulichkeit
Kapitel 1: Tatsächliche Probleme
I. Parteitage: Überhöhte Hürden für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit - II. Politische Strategien: Offenbarung durch das Auskunftsrecht - III. Verarbeitung im Gesamtverein: Gemeinsame Verantwortung? - IV. Bußgelder bei Datenschutzverstößen - V. Finanzielle Belastung
Kapitel 2: Primärrechtliche Lösungen
I. Lösungsvorschlag: Begrenzung des Anwendungsbereichs der DSGVO aufgrund begrenzter Kompetenz der Union - II. Erste Schranke: Binnenmarktakzessorietät des freien Datenverkehrs - III. Zweite Schranke: Nationale Identität - IV. Folgen der Schranken für die Datenschutzregulierung - V. Fazit
Kapitel 3: Sekundärrechtliche Lösungen
I. Zulässigkeit der Verarbeitung nach Art. 9 Abs. 2 lit. g DSGVO - II. Auskunftsverweigerung: Schutz der politischen Strategie? - III. Verarbeitung im Gesamtverein - IV. Bußgelder
Kapitel 4: Ausblick
I. Zur Bedeutung des zweiten Kapitels - II. Gesetzgeberischer Handlungsbedarf
Zusammenfassung der Erkenntnisse
I. Problemanalyse - II. Europäisches Primärrecht - III. Europäisches Sekundärrecht - IV. Zukünftige Entwicklungen