Mexican Supreme Court rules national registry of mobile phone users violates privacy, intimacy, and the protection of personal data

European Court of Human Rights
The Case of Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation e. V. v. Germany
Decision Date: October 10, 2023
The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that the proscription and dissolution of the International Association for Humanitarian Aid (IAHA) by the German authorities did not violate its right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case revolved around IAHA's extensive financial support for "social societies," particularly the Islamic Society linked to Hamas, prompting the German Ministry of the Interior to order its dissolution. The German authorities argued that IAHA's financial support for certain "social societies," linked to Hamas, violated the concept of international understanding and posed a threat to public safety. IAHA challenged the proscription, contending that it was disproportionate and infringed on its freedom of association. The Court found the the proscription was justified, given IAHA's knowing support for terrorism and attempts to conceal such activities. The ECtHR emphasized the wider margin of appreciation for states in cases involving terrorism and found no violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mexico
Unconstitutionality of the National Registry of Mobile Telephone Users
Decision Date: April 26, 2022
The Mexican National Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the amendment to the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, which created a National Registry of Mobile Telephone Users (PANAUT), was unconstitutional because it violated the rights to privacy, intimacy, and the protection of personal data. The amendment conditioned access to a cell phone line to the delivery of sensitive data, such as biometrical information, to assist with the investigation and prosecution of crimes. The National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection of Mexico (INAI), and a group of 48 Senators of the Mexican National Congress, both filed unconstitutionality actions. They argued that the proposed Registry entailed a compulsory and indiscriminate collection of personal information without a proper justification. They also claimed that the amendment violated the right to access information and communications technologies (ITC) and to freedom of expression because a large part of the population has access to the internet only through their mobile devices. Moreover, they affirmed that the Registry would create a system of permanent surveillance over society, which could have a chilling effect on the exercise of criticism and social protests. The Court held that the Registry, indeed, interfered with the rights to privacy, intimacy, and the protection of personal data, and after conducting a proportionality test, it concluded that the restriction of these human rights was unconstitutional because other less restrictive measures were equally suitable for strengthening public security. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged that mass surveillance, and possible interferences to private life, may have a negative effect on the right to freedom of expression.

Malawi
Mutharika and Electoral Commission v. Chilima and Chakwera
Decision Date: May 8, 2020
The Malawian Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court’s decision to declare the General Elections invalid and direct fresh Presidential elections. Unsuccessful presidential candidates had filed petitions alleging that the elections were marred with irregularities, including intimidation and bribery of election monitors and tampering with vote tally sheets. The lower court had nullified the elections on account of irregularities and the incumbent president and the Electoral Commission appealed the decision. The Court accepted the factual findings of the irregularities from the lower court and found that these seriously undermined the credibility, integrity, and fairness of the presidential election, and grossly violated voters’ constitutional rights to choose their leader.