Year: 2019
Author: Kienle, Thomas, Martini, Mario
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 52 (2019), Iss. 4 : pp. 467–500
Abstract
Courts of auditors fulfil a key function within a state’s constitutional structure. One of their most important responsibilities is to strengthen the citizens’ trust in the state and in politics by controlling the state‘s financial management. In order to perform this task, the courts of auditors need thorough insight into administrative proceedings, even in those that contain personal data. Therefore, the external financial control can come into conflict with the involved persons’ right to informational self-determination. If the GDPR applied in full to the courts of auditors’ processing activities, this could - in turn - interfere with their constitutionally protected independence. On closer examination, it becomes clear that audit and data protection authorities maintain a special relationship of cooperation. Their respective competency of control is reciprocally limited as required by their particular independence. As a consequence, courts of auditors have to be treated in analogy to courts of justice, which the GDPR explicitly privileges. Thus, courts of auditors are subject to data protection law, but (inter alia) released from the data protection authorities’ supervision.
You do not have full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber? Sign in as an individual or via your institution
Journal Article Details
Publisher Name: Global Science Press
Language: German
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.4.467
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 52 (2019), Iss. 4 : pp. 467–500
Published online: 2019-10
AMS Subject Headings: Duncker & Humblot
Copyright: COPYRIGHT: © Global Science Press
Pages: 34
Author Details
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mario Martini und Thomas Kienle, Finanzkontrolle und Datenschutz | 467 | ||
| Die Rechnungshöfe im Mehrebenensystem des europäischen Datenschutzrechts | 467 | ||
| I. Finanzkontrolle und Grundrechtspositionen Dritter | 467 | ||
| II. Reichweite der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung | 469 | ||
| 1. Rechnungshöfe als Verantwortliche | 469 | ||
| 2. Sachlicher Anwendungsbereich: externe Finanzkontrolle im Radius der DSGVO? | 470 | ||
| 3. Entsprechende Anwendung kraft nationaler Verweisung | 467 | ||
| III. Unionsrechtliche Analogie zur justiziellen Tätigkeit der Gerichte | 467 | ||
| 1. Richterliche Unabhängigkeit (der Mitglieder) der Rechnungshöfe | 467 | ||
| 2. Analogie zu Art. 55 Abs. 3 DSGVO: begrenzte Zuständigkeit der Aufsichtsbehörden | 467 | ||
| 3. Weitere Analogien beim Datenschutzbeauftragten und der Verarbeitung sensibler Daten? | 468 | ||
| IV. Nationales Datenschutzrecht | 468 | ||
| 1. Bundesdatenschutzgesetz | 468 | ||
| 2. Datenschutzgesetze der Länder | 468 | ||
| V. Fazit | 469 | ||
| Abstract | 469 |