Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

65. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 69 of 19 November 2015, why he has come to the conclusion that the Bara judgment case concerned the sharing between two State entities in Romania of data without legislative authority, when in fact, such legislation had been passed by the Parliament of Romania authorising the transfer of data which was subject to the determination of the CJEU in Bara, viz. Article 315 of Law No 95/2006 of the Parliament of Romania on health care reform (details supplied); if, therefore, he will accept that the interpretation of Bara expressed in the former parliamentary question is incorrect, and consequently the premise of that parliamentary question that the data transferred toward the administration of the local property tax was done so illegally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42195/15]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am advised by Revenue that the data-sharing at issue in the Bara case arose from the sharing between a Romanian Tax Authority and a Romanian Health Insurance Fund, both State bodies, of information - in breach of Article 10 of Directive 95/46 (paragraph 38 of the judgment). The argument made on behalf of the Romanian agencies, that the data-sharing was grounded in Article 315 of Law No. 95/2006, was rejected by the Court, as set out in paragraphs 36-38 of the judgment.

It was argued on behalf of the Romanian agencies that a protocol or administrative agreement entered into between the two bodies was sufficient to render the exchange lawful under Article 13 of Directive 95/46. As set out in paragraph 40 of the Judgment, the protocol or agreement which was invoked did not enjoy legislative status, was not published in any official journal and was classed by the Court of Justice of the EU as an "administrative act", as opposed to a "legislative act". The Court held that this was insufficient to engage Article 13 of Directive 95/46.

Article 13 of Directive 95/46, states that "Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of obligations and rights under the Directive when such a restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard:

1. national security;

2. defence;

3. public security;

4. the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, or of breaches of ethics for regulated professions;

5. an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters;

6. a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e);

7. the protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others."

Revenue is satisfied that data compiled or transferred in the compilation and maintenance of the LPT register has been compiled or transferred in accordance with the provisions of the Directive on the basis of the legislative measures outlined in the reply to Parliamentary Question Number 69 of 19 November, 2015 and consequently is not impugned either by the Directive itself or by the Bara judgment.