The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in 2014 ruled in Digital Rights Ireland that the Data Retention Directive was invalid for exceeding the limits of proportionality in light of Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). Subsequently, preliminary references from the England and Wales Court of Appeal and the Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal sought clarification from the ECJ as to whether EU law permitted a general obligation to retain traffic data covering all persons, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any distinctions, limitations or exceptions for the purpose of combating crime. The ECJ in Tele2 and Watson ruled that in light of Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) of the Charter, EU Member States were precluded from adopting national measures which provided general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication. The ECJ also ruled that Member States were only permitted to adopt data retention measures for the purpose of fighting serious crime, and only when access to retained data was subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body.In 2018, the issue of the UK's data retention regime envisaged in Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 came before the England and Wales High Court. The High Court ruled that Part 4 was incompatible with EU law because access to retained communications data was not limited to the purpose of fighting serious crime, and it was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body. This judgment was regarded by the claimants, Liberty, as a ‘landmark victory for privacy rights’. However, this paper questions whether certain aspects of the High Court ruling are indeed a victory, by assessing its compatibility with EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

中文翻译：

---

英国数据保留法与欧盟法律不兼容真的是胜利吗？

欧盟法院 (ECJ) 于 2014 年裁定爱尔兰数字版权根据《欧盟基本权利宪章》（宪章）第 7 条、第 8 条和第 52 条第 1 款，数据保留指令因超出比例限制而无效。随后，英格兰和威尔士上诉法院和瑞典行政上诉法院的初步参考要求欧洲法院澄清欧盟法律是否允许保留涵盖所有人、所有电子通信方式和所有交通数据的交通数据的一般义务不为打击犯罪而作任何区别、限制或例外。欧洲法院在Tele2 和 Watson裁定，根据《宪章》第 7、8、11 和 52(1) 条，欧盟成员国不得采取国家措施，对所有订户和注册用户的交通和位置数据进行普遍和不加区别的保留的电子通讯。欧洲法院还裁定，仅允许成员国采取数据保留措施以打击严重犯罪，并且只有在对保留数据的访问受到法院或独立行政机构事先审查的情况下。 2018 年， 2016 年《调查权力法》第 4 部分设想的英国数据保留制度已提交英格兰和威尔士高等法院。高等法院裁定，第 4 部分不符合欧盟法律，因为访问保留的通信数据不仅限于打击严重犯罪的目的，而且不受法院或独立行政机构的事先审查。原告 Liberty 认为这一判决是“隐私权的里程碑式胜利”。然而，本文通过评估其与欧盟法律和《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR）的兼容性，质疑高等法院裁决的某些方面是否确实是胜利。