Protection of personal data in a digitalized justice system
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v17i1.7272Abstract
The digitalization of the justice system brings significant benefits in efficiency, transparency, and access to legal services. However, it also presents important challenges regarding the protection of citizens’ personal data. In Albania, the legal framework for data protection is based on Law No. 9887/2008 “On the Protection of Personal Data.” With the increasing use of electronic systems and artificial intelligence (AI) in the justice sector, the need for additional protective measures arises. The analysis of key risks is related to the storage, processing, and sharing of personal data within courts, prosecution offices, and automated legal services. Additionally, it examines the impact of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on Albanian legislation and the need for alignment with European standards. The focus is on strategies and mechanisms necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of data in the justice system, while maintaining a balance between technological innovation and the protection of fundamental human rights.Keywords:
Data protection, justice system digitalization, privacy, GDPR, Albanian legislation.Downloads
References
-
1. UNODC. (2020). Digitalization of Justice Systems: Efficiency and Privacy.
-
2. Ministry of Justice. (2021). Justice Strategy 2021–2025.
-
3. ENISA. (2022). Security Guidelines for e-Justice Systems.
-
4. Parliament of Albania. (2008). Law No. 9887, dated 10.03.2008 On the Protection of Personal Data.
-
5. European Parliament & Council. (1995). Directive 95/46/EC.
-
6. European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
-
7. Voigt, P., & von dem Bussche, A. (2017). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide. Springer.
-
8. Commissioner for the Right to Information and Protection of Personal Data. (2023). Annual Report.
-
9. European Data Protection Board. (n.d.). Guidelines on Data Breach Notifications.
-
10. CNIL. (2019). Guide on Security of Personal Data. France.
-
11. European Data Protection Supervisor. (2022). Anonymisation Techniques and Best Practices.
-
12. Federal Office for Information Security (BSI). (n.d.). IT-Grundschutz Catalogues. Germany.
-
13. Estonian Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Digital Justice Strategy.
-
14. Council of Europe. (2021). Handbook on European Data Protection Law.
-
15. OECD. (2020). Digital Government in the Justice Sector.
-
16. FRA. (2020). Fundamental Rights Report.
-
17. AlgorithmWatch. (2021). AI in Justice Systems: Risks and Ethics.
-
18. Brkan, M. (2019). AI and GDPR: Impact on Fundamental Rights.
-
19. OSCE. (2022). Training Manual on Data Protection in the Judiciary.
-
20. International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). (n.d.). Privacy Program Management.
-
21. BelenSaglam, R., Altuncu, E., Lu, Y., & Li, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of the tension between the GDPR and public blockchain systems. arXiv.
-
22. Maralbaeva, A. (2024). Evolution of eJustice Platforms: from ICT in Courts Towards ‘Digital Jus-tice’ Portal in Kyrgyzstan. International Journal for Court Administration, 15(1), Article 6.
-
23. Miço Bellani, H., & Leci, E. (2024). Assessing the security of privacy rights and data protection in Albania: A critical analysis within the European legal framework. Juridical Tribune, 14(4), 721–748.
-
24. Trigiante, L., Beneventano, D., & Bergamaschi, S. (2023). PrivacyPreserving Data Integration for Digital Justice. In T. P. Sales et al. (Eds.), Advances in Conceptual Modeling (LNCS Vol. 14319, pp. 172–177). Springer.
-
25. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. arXiv.
References
1. UNODC. (2020). Digitalization of Justice Systems: Efficiency and Privacy.
2. Ministry of Justice. (2021). Justice Strategy 2021–2025.
3. ENISA. (2022). Security Guidelines for e-Justice Systems.
4. Parliament of Albania. (2008). Law No. 9887, dated 10.03.2008 On the Protection of Personal Data.
5. European Parliament & Council. (1995). Directive 95/46/EC.
6. European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
7. Voigt, P., & von dem Bussche, A. (2017). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide. Springer.
8. Commissioner for the Right to Information and Protection of Personal Data. (2023). Annual Report.
9. European Data Protection Board. (n.d.). Guidelines on Data Breach Notifications.
10. CNIL. (2019). Guide on Security of Personal Data. France.
11. European Data Protection Supervisor. (2022). Anonymisation Techniques and Best Practices.
12. Federal Office for Information Security (BSI). (n.d.). IT-Grundschutz Catalogues. Germany.
13. Estonian Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Digital Justice Strategy.
14. Council of Europe. (2021). Handbook on European Data Protection Law.
15. OECD. (2020). Digital Government in the Justice Sector.
16. FRA. (2020). Fundamental Rights Report.
17. AlgorithmWatch. (2021). AI in Justice Systems: Risks and Ethics.
18. Brkan, M. (2019). AI and GDPR: Impact on Fundamental Rights.
19. OSCE. (2022). Training Manual on Data Protection in the Judiciary.
20. International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). (n.d.). Privacy Program Management.
21. BelenSaglam, R., Altuncu, E., Lu, Y., & Li, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of the tension between the GDPR and public blockchain systems. arXiv.
22. Maralbaeva, A. (2024). Evolution of eJustice Platforms: from ICT in Courts Towards ‘Digital Jus-tice’ Portal in Kyrgyzstan. International Journal for Court Administration, 15(1), Article 6.
23. Miço Bellani, H., & Leci, E. (2024). Assessing the security of privacy rights and data protection in Albania: A critical analysis within the European legal framework. Juridical Tribune, 14(4), 721–748.
24. Trigiante, L., Beneventano, D., & Bergamaschi, S. (2023). PrivacyPreserving Data Integration for Digital Justice. In T. P. Sales et al. (Eds.), Advances in Conceptual Modeling (LNCS Vol. 14319, pp. 172–177). Springer.
25. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. arXiv.
Shqip
English
Italiano
