Balance between the Right to Personal Data Protection and Freedom of Information

The purpose of personal data protection is to ensure the confidentiality of information related to an individual. Personal data protection guarantees that the information related to the individual will not reach the persons who may harm the data subject (owner). This is closely related to the basic human right to privacy. At the same time, the protection of personal data may conflict with other basic rights in certain cases, and the task of finding a balance between them may arise before the law; One of these is freedom of information. Freedom of information means information is accessible, usable, and disseminated. Access to information held by public institutions and the interest in protecting the personal data of public sector employees may conflict with each other. In some cases, it is principally important and a matter of public interest for society to have access to information about employees working in the public sector. This information provides an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the public sector work and prevent corruption, as well as to ensure the transparency of the public sector and the principle of open governance. Moreover, access to such information may include the right to access such personal data of employees in the public sector, which may harm the privacy of these subjects. The paper includes the analysis of the mentioned fundamental right and aims to establish a fair balance between the conflicting rights. This purpose will be achieved by researching the legislation of Georgia as well as the principles and practices of freedom of information and personal data protection applicable in Europe and the United States.

1. Gatserelia, A., Gegenava, D., Sommermann, K. P., Kobakhidze, I., Rogava, Z., Svanishvili, S., Turava, P., Kalichava, K., Khubua, G., Handbook of the Legal Bases of Public Administration, Institute of Administrative Sciences TSU, Tbilisi, 2016;
2. Turava, P,. Institute of Professional Civil Servants as a Cornerstone of Georgian Civil Service Reform, Administrative Law, Scientific-Popular Journal, 2/2016;
3. Giakoumopoulos, C., Buttarelli, G., O’Flaherty, M., Handbook on European Data Protection Law, Publishing House of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018,
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook_data_protection_KAT.pdf;
4. Bimber, B., Gil de Zúñiga, H., The Unedited Public Sphere, New Media and Society, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2020;
5. Birkinshaw, P., Freedom of Information and Openness: Fundamental Human Rights, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 58, Issue 1, 2006;
6. Carrier, M., Gartzlaff, M., Responsible Research and Innovation: Hopes and Fears in The Scientific Community in Europe, Journal of Responsible Innovation, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 2020;
7. Cate, F. H., Fields, D. A., McBain, J. K., The Right to Privacy and the Public's Right to Know the Central Purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1994;
8. Cox, A., Executive Privilege, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 122, No. 6, 1974, 11386, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5725&context=penn_law_review;
9. Cronin, A. M., The Secrecy - Transparency Dynamic: A Sociological Reframing of Secrecy and Transparency for Public Relations Research, Public Relations Inquiry, Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2020;
10.Geiger, C., Izyumenko, E., Towards a European “Fair Use” Grounded in Freedom of Expression, American University International Law Review, Vol. 35, Issue 1, 2019;
11.Iyamu, T., Ngqame, Y., Towards a Conceptual Framework for the Protection of Personal Information from the Perspective of Activity Theory, South African Journal of Information Management, Vol. 19, Issue 1, 2017, 3.
12.Jokhadze, S., Freedom of Information – Constitutional Protection and its Legislative Regulation in Germany, the Czech Republic, and Georgia, Central European University, 2020;
13.Kokott, J., and Sobotta, C., The Distinction Between Privacy and Data Protection in the Jurisprudence of the CJEU and the EctHR, International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 3, Issue 4, 2013;
14.Lidberg, J., Keeping the Bastards Honest - The Promise and Practice of Freedom of Information Legislation, Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, presented to Murdoch University in 2006;
15.Mendel, T., Freedom of Information: a Comparative Legal Survey, UNESCO, Paris, 2008;
16.Purtova, N., The Law of Everything. The Broad Concept of Personal Data and the Future of EU Data Protection Law, Law, Innovation and Technology, Vol. 10, Issue 1, 2018;
17.Schwartz, B., Executive Privilege and Congressional Investigatory Power, California Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 1, 1959;
18.Schwoerer, K., Individuals’ Use of Twitter to Discuss Freedom of Information in the United States: A Social Network Analysis, The Journal of Civic Information, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019;
19.Stetsenko, A., Critical Challenges in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory: The Urgency of Agency, Cultural-Historical Psychology, Vol. 16, Issue 2, 2020;
20.Tsulukidze, M., Nyman-Metcalf, K., Tsap, V., Pappel, I., Draheim, D., Aspects of Personal Data Protection from State and Citizen Perspectives – Case of Georgia, Digital Transformation for a Sustainable Society in the
21st Century: 18th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2019, Trondheim, Norway, September 18–20, 2019, Proceedings 18;
21.Walby, K., Yaremko, J., Freedom of Information Audits as Access Advocacy, The Journal of Civic Information, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 2020;
22.Wisniewski, P. J., Page, X., Privacy Theories and Frameworks, Modern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy Cham, Springer International Publishing, 2022;
23.Yaremko, J., Walby, K., Social Movement Groups and Freedom of Information: Frames, Techniques and Networks, Interface, Journal on Social Movements, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 2021;
24.Yoo, J. C., The First Claim: The Burr Trial, United States v. Niwon, and Presidential Power, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 88:1435, 1999;
25.Young, M., Rodriguez, L., Keller, E., Sun, F., Sa, B., Whittington, J. Howe, B., Beyond Open v. Closed: Balancing Individual Privacy and Public Accountability in Data Sharing, Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2019;
26.Access to Public Information in Georgia 2022, Institute for Development of Information Freedom (IDFI), March 10, 2023,
https://idfi.ge/ge/access_to_public_information_in_georgia_2022_;
27.Georgia, Handbook on Transparency and Citizen Participation, Council of Europe, 2020, 27, https://rm.coe.int/handbook-georgiaeng/1680786b7d.
28.Georgia's implementation of the 17 June 2022 Recommendations by the European Commission - Monitoring the Parliament's Activities in Relation to Parliamentary Oversight, Elections and Justice Issues, Tbilisi,
2023, https://www.gyla.ge/files/კვლევა,ევროკომისიის%20რეკომენდაციების%20შესრულება%20(1).
pdf.
29.Human Rights and Case-Law of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, Tbilisi, 2013;
30.Report of the Public Defender of Georgia on the Situation of Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2022;
31.Report of the Public Defender of Georgia on the Situation of Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2020,
https://www.ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2021040110573948397.pdf;
32.State Department Report of 2022 on Human Rights in Georgia, March 28, 2023,
https://idfi.ge/ge/u_s_department_of_state_report_2022_on_human_rights_practices_georgia;
33.The Importance of Personal Data Protection in the E-GovernmentProcess, Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), January 28, 2021, https://idfi.ge/ge/the_importance_of_personal_data_protection_in_the_e-government_management_process;
34. Judgment No. 1/4/757 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of March
27, 2017 in the case of Georgian citizen Giorgi Kraveishvili v. the Government of Georgia;
35.Judgment No. 1/4/693,857 of the Constitutional Court of June 7, 2019 in the case of N(N)LE Media Development Foundation and N(N)LE Institute for Development of Freedom of Information v. the Parliament of
Georgia;
36.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52003XX0718%2801%29;
37.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679;
38.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:C2012/326/02;
39.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PD;
40.https://home.treasury.gov/footer/freedom-of-information-act;
41.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1561437?publication=33;
42.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16270?publication=43;
43.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2001875?publication=0;
44.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2496959?publication=0.
45.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2592975?publication=0;
46.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346?publication=36;
47.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/33550?publication=88;
48.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3971683?publication=33;
49.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/5336320?publication=0;
50.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/5346058?publication=0;
51.https://parliament.ge/media/news/parlamentma-personalur-monatsemta-datsvis-shesakheb-kanonproekti-miigho;
52.https://www.britannica.com/event/Watergate-Scandal;
53.https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng;
54.https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/georgia/#:~:text=The%202022%20Human%20Rights%20in,media%20critical%20of%20the%20government.
55.https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights;
56.http://www.csb.gov.ge/media/3211/645978.pdf.