Europe to the Rescue

In the present paper we aim to analyze several key aspect regarding the protection of the children�s rights in the EU specially and all over the world, in general. We will refer to the 1980 Hague Convention which applies in all EU member states in regard to the children under the age of 16 who are displaced from their habitual residence in another state or are detained in this second state unlawfully. The provisions of the Hague Convention apply if the child was illegally moved to or from a country which is a party to this Convention and if the minor was under sixteen years of age at the time of his removal or detention. Children are one of the most vulnerable category of people and the states should be very careful in regard to their protection. That is why there is a need to raise awareness and improve the knowledge and analysis of the legal standards that ensure the actual protection and promotion of these rights. We will also refer to the EU regulations: the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which establishes the Union�s obligation to promote the protection of children�s rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU), EU regulations and directives and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Within the Council of Europe, many conventions focus on specific aspects of the protection of children�s rights, from their rights and safety in cyberspace to adoption. Results and implications: These conventions complement the protection granted to children under the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, including under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR).

The study aimed to analyse how the Ukrainian legal system implements the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as to identify problems and prospects for improving this process. The article used methods of legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, comparison of national legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, analysis of the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, research on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights decisions at the national level, hermeneutics to identify terminological gaps, analysis of the implementation of European standards in the national legal system, and deduction to identify key issues in cases against Ukraine. An analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights revealed numerous systemic human rights violations in Ukraine, particularly in the areas of conditions of detention, unlawful arrests and lengthy court proceedings. Problems with non-enforcement of court decisions and violations of the rights to liberty and dignity have been confirmed by numerous cases, such as Gongadze v. Ukraine and Kharchenko v. Ukraine. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine following the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the limitation of the term of pre-trial detention, have reduced the number of cases of prolonged detention The study aimed to analyse how the Ukrainian legal system implements the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as to identify problems and prospects for improving this process. The article used methods of legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, comparison of national legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, analysis of the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, research on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights decisions at the national level, hermeneutics to identify terminological gaps, analysis of the implementation of European standards in the national legal system, and deduction to identify key issues in cases against Ukraine. An analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights revealed numerous systemic human rights violations in Ukraine, particularly in the areas of conditions of detention, unlawful arrests and lengthy court proceedings. Problems with non-enforcement of court decisions and violations of the rights to liberty and dignity have been confirmed by numerous cases, such as Gongadze v. Ukraine and Kharchenko v. Ukraine. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine following the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the limitation of the term of pre-trial detention, have reduced the number of cases of prolonged detention

Under strong influence of the European coherency, the member states are constantly improving public administration performance. The scientific justification of the paper has been reflected through analysis and synthesis of legally binding or non-binding /international and European principles. It focuses on international and European rules and practice promoting principles of legality, professionalism, transparency, responsibility, public service integrity. They have a strong influence on the development and implementation of the standards in national public administration systems. It is expected that harmonization of national regulations will encourage development of common practice of public officials' performance. The European Court of Human Rights doctrine and practice has developed the principle of legality (rule of law, legal certainty). The paper also emphasizes the efforts of European institutions (European Commission, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights) as well as other international organisations (United Nations). The paper offers the analysis and comparison of divergent tendencies in the permanent public administration reform. It elaborates convergence and symbiosis of international and European standards and their influence to national administrative systems. Particular attention has been given to comparison at cross-national level and possibilities for putting standards in practice in various national legal systems. Prevailing research methods are theoretical and normative, comparative and descriptive research methods, as well as cross-national and international comparisons with respect to case law of European institutions (European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe).

Guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, the right to respect for private and family life for those sentenced to life imprisonment, in terms of its implementation and scope, differs from this right for free individuals. But it is undeniable that those sentenced to life imprisonment are not deprived of this right in full. This is consistently emphasized in its practice by the European Court of Human Rights. In addition to private and family life being a natural need of every individual, its realization, particularly in forms such as maintaining and supporting connections with the outside world, is a means of re-socialization for individuals undergoing punishment in the form of life imprisonment. The benchmark for the development of Ukrainian legislation and law enforcement practice is the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to respect for private and family life for those sentenced to life imprisonment should be studied and generalized. The precondition for the further development of any scientific direction is the comprehension of what has already been done by previous researchers. The conducted research has shown that Ukrainian scientific literature has addressed the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding various aspects of the right to respect for the private and family life of prisoners, broadly understood (including those in custody, sentenced to a certain term of imprisonment, and those sentenced to life imprisonment): 1) the conclusion that the restriction of the right to respect for private and family life for persons deprived of liberty, provided it is lawful, is not incompatible with the Convention; 2) the conditions/criteria for the legality of such restriction, implemented by national authorities; 3) the systematic identification of the main types of violations of the right to respect for family life recorded in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding convicted persons and persons in custody; 4) special protection of correspondence between an inmate and their lawyer; 5) differentiation of the spheres of application of Article 8 with other articles of the Convention, primarily Article 3; 6) determination of the main trend in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights «in the penitentiary sphere and in the criminal justice system as a whole,» which consists of constantly raising the standards of human rights by the Court; 7) ignoring the need for an individual approach in applying restrictions on the rights of persons deprived of liberty. The analysis of the existing body of scientific literature shows that existing studies are mainly based on the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights practice regarding foreign states and, with one exception, do not distinguish the legal status of those sentenced to life imprisonment among other deprived individuals. Since the publication of the analyzed monographs, 9–10 years have passed. During this time, the European Court of Human Rights has developed a significant body of practice regarding Ukraine, taking into account the Ukrainian context. Therefore, the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decisions specifically regarding Ukraine should be a priority. Additionally, they should be analyzed in full. Such an analysis will allow, in conjunction with demonstrating the Convention’s standards regarding the right of those sentenced to life imprisonment to respect for their private and family life, to show the systematic and partial problems in this area identified by the European Court of Human Rights in its practice regarding Ukraine.

The article is devoted to determining the peculiarities of application of various types of measures in the mechanism of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine.Based on the analysis of international legal acts, provisions of Ukrainian legislation and case law, the author describes the procedure for applying individual measures and general measures in the process of enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine. The author distinguishes the difference between the procedure for enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the procedure for enforcement of judgments of foreign courts or international commercial arbitrations in Ukraine.It is argued that the viewpoint in the scientific literature that judicial review is not the main means of individual influence in the mechanism of enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights does not in any way negate its importance in situations where restitutio in integrum is possible only in this way.The author concludes that measures to enforce a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights are comprehensive in nature and are aimed at the fullest possible restoration of the violated right, elimination of the negative consequences of such a violation and prevention of similar violations in the future.The . The author concludes that individual measures are best suited to a particular legal situation. They are implemented both by virtue of the direct effect of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the territory of Ukraine (in terms of payment of compensation to the victim) and by adopting decisions of state authorities based on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with the established procedure. For example, by reviewing decisions of national courts in exceptional circumstances.The author concludes that general measures have a systemic impact on the legal system of the State, serve the purpose of bringing national legislation closer to European standards and have a preventive effect on preventing future violations of the rights protected by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, not only in respect of the person in whose favour the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was delivered, but also in respect of any other citizens of the relevant State.

The so-called Salduz doctrine that concerns the right to a fair trial and the right to the defense attorney emerged from the case of Salduz v. Turkey, decided on the part of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber found the violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this connection, the aim of this paper is twofold. In the first place, the paper aims to demonstrate how the European Court of Human Rights has overturned the two main tenents of the so-called Salduz doctrine derived from its landmark case of Salduz v. Turkey in its later Judgments delivered in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom and the case of Beuze v. Belgium. The two tenets derived from the Salduz doctrine being examined in the paper are the right to access to the defense attorney as a rule during pre-trial proceedings and the absolute exclusionary rule. In the second place, the paper aims to offer a critique of the standard of compelling reasons employed in the Ibrahim Judgment. In order to achieve its aim, this paper primarily analyses the jurisprudence of the European Human Court of Human Rights in the cases of Salduz v. Turkey, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, and Beuze v. Belgium. Besides, the paper also touches upon other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to its subject. The paper in question, therefore, primarily relies on the case-law method in achieving its aims. The paper concludes that in overturning the Salduz doctrine in relation to aspects examined in the paper, the European Court of Human Rights has exacerbated the legal standing of the person against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted.

The author has studied the issue of the origin and formation of the European Court of Human Rights after the Second World War, steps in the establishment and development of this Court, as well as the actions of the Member States to consolidate the development of the European Court of Human Rights at specialized conferences with the support of the Committee of Ministers. The list of regulatory and legislative acts adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for the establishment of the rule of law in regard to the understanding of human rights in the activities of Ukrainian courts has been researched. Since the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has become part of national legislation after its ratification by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, more detailed study should be conducted regarding the urgent task of fully understanding the content of this international treaty and the main mechanisms for implementing its norms. The author has analyzed the implementation of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the example of its specific decisions into criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine by applying the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its activities and problematic aspects of their practical implementation. Particular attention has been paid to the study of problematic aspects of the use of these decisions in practice by highlighting the rulings of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court issued in 2019. The author has analyzed the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the conducted secret (search) actions by law enforcement agencies with further disclosure ob obtained evidence to the defense party; it has been also pointed out that the right to disclose evidence contained in criminal proceedings is not absolute to the defense and may be limited only in cases when there are the interests of national security, information protection or witness protection concerning the methods and forms of law enforcement agencies’ activity. The author has made propositions to resolve certain situations related to the implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine.

This article presents the current issues in the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. It is pointed out that the division of international law into branches and institutions, in order to ensure the effective legal regulation of new spheres of relations, led to the emergence of autonomous legal regimes, even within one region, namely on the European continent. To date, these include European Union law and Council of Europe law. It is emphasized the features of the established legal relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union at the present stage. It is determined that, along with close cooperation between regional organizations, there is a phenomenon of fragmentation, which is accompanied by the creation of two legal regimes within the same regional subsystem, proliferation of the international legal norms, institutions, spheres and conflicts of jurisdiction between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is revealed that some aspects of fragmentation can be observed from the moment of establishing relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, up to the modern dynamics of the functioning of the system of law of international organizations, the law of international treaties, law of human rights. Areas and types of fragmentation in relations between international intergovernmental organizations of the European continent are distinguished. One way to overcome the consequences of fragmentation in the field of human rights is highlighted, namely through the accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Considerable attention has also been paid to defragmentation, which is partly reflected in the participation of the European Union in the Council of Europe’s conventions by the applying «disconnection clause». It is determined that the legal relations established between an international intergovernmental organization of the traditional type and the integration association sui generis, the CoE and the EU, but with the presence of phenomenon of fragmentation in a close strategic partnership, do not diminish their joint contribution into the development of the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. Key words: defragmentation; European Union; European Court of Human Rights; Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; conflict of jurisdictions; «disconnection clause»; Council of Europe; Court of Justice of the European Union; fragmentation; sui generis.

This article is devoted to clarify the significance of the advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights as a recently improved institution. Thus, according to Article 1 of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the highest judicial institutions of the High Contracting Party, as defined in accordance with Art. 10 may apply to the Court for advisory opinions on matters of principle concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined by the Convention or its protocols. Considering the fact that only two advisory opinions on the appeal of the member states of the Council of Europe have been published on the official website of the court, this topic is a new subject for research and requires a systematic study. Allowing states to seek advisory opinions was driven by the need to ease the burden on the European Court of Human Rights. However, given the novelty of the improved institute, this statement is still controversial. The article offers its own conclusions regarding the significance of the advisory opinions in the activities of the European Court, provides a view on the legal nature of this legal institution in the internal legal order of Ukraine. This was achieved by defining the essence of such a mechanism, analyzing primary sources from the official website of the court, statistical data on the functioning of the institution, and generalizing national legislation to determine the legal nature. Thus, although Ukraine has ratified Protocol No. 16, however, the legal status of such advisory opinions has not been determined. In this connection, it is proposed to amend a number of legislative acts, in particular, to article 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On the implementation and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights", which should be supplemented with the rule on the legal force of the advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the general importance of such an institution, it seems reasonable to hope for a decrease in the number of decisions that would contradict the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and, accordingly, a decrease in the grounds for filing applications.

This article argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) uses external references as a tool to enhance ‘constitutional justice’. This technique is illustrated by the Court's contribution to an important shift in migration law beginning in the late 1980s and resulting in an enhanced scheme for protection against expulsion in Europe. This shift reflects the changing role of the ECtHR from a court primarily concerned with providing ‘individual justice’ to a court aiming at enabling ‘constitutional justice’. The aim of the article is to contextualize the aforementioned shift with a historical view and to understand it in methodological terms. It argues that the Court supports its dynamic interpretation of the right to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in crucial judgments by reference to often non-binding instruments issued by the Council of Europe and to other human rights treaties. In this regard, the case of protection against expulsion illustrates a particular feature of the Court's turn to ‘constitutional justice’, namely the increased application of the principle of systemic integration. This allowed the Court to develop a meaningful and comprehensive protection scheme in the first place. However, the article reveals that once the substantial standard developed by the ECtHR has been formally implemented in domestic law, domestic decisions are reviewed with significantly less scrutiny. This limitation may again be explained by the ‘constitutional turn’ which results in a pragmatic tendency to proceduralization in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.

The subject of the study is a legal analysis of the Council of Europe and its activities including the creation of legal instruments, by means of relevant legal acts and practice. The legal analysis of the Council of Europe is based on formal sources, i.e. the statute and additional protocols Innovating statutory matters of the organs of the Council of Europe. Of the same importance are organs of implementation authorized by the statute which actualize the interpretation of the statute. This actualizing practice manifests Itself in different forms. Sometimes it is an ad hoc decision which does not aim at a regulation of future situations, has not any normative strength, but creates a precedent and contributes to creating a certain practice (case law). In other cases a resolution adopted by a statutory organ has a form of a regulative leading to an amendment of all future cases of the same kind. Such a resolution may either supplement the text of the statute or derogate its so far existing interpretation. Also the processes of formulating and concluding European Conventions and means for controlling their implementation contribute to the development and actualization of the principle treaties. The Council of Europe aims at goals which themselves represent a process. This excludes a final shape of the Council of Europe or its static character. The practice of the statutory organs of the Council of Europe is based not only on the written law but also on a concrete political reality and thus provides an actual interpretation of the statute. This application of law, doubtlessly influenced by the Anglosaxon legal practice, makes from the Council of Europe a vivid organism. The effectivity of its activities is assured not only by the statute and its amendments but also by the acts of organs adopted on the basis of the statute, recommendations and resolutions of a more general nature, and by the practice of statutory organs, above all by deciding concrete cases. The Council of Europe has not a direct legislative jurisdiction with regard to member states. However, in the course of 40 years it has established a legislative system which now includes 141 international conventions, agreements an protocols. The conventions are not norms directly applicable in internal law, in contrary to the regulations of the European Communities. They are acts of international law of treaties, binding the states which have ratified them. They require from the states an implementation through domestic measures. From the total number of 141 conventions more than two thirds have been ratified by the required number of states. The politically most important instrument – The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) – binds all member states of the Council of Europe. The purpose of the conventions is to realize the basic goals of the Council of Europe – the protection of human rights and freedoms of individuals in a pluralistic democratic society and the rule of law. Their Importance is not only a matter of the corresponding legal provisions but also of an effective judicial or parajudicial control of the required harmony of the national, judicial and administrative practice. The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as well as of other organs of the Council of Europe create a wide interpretation case law enabling actualization and development of the “European Law”. If Czechoslovakia is to participate in this desirable unification process, it must connect its membership in the Council of Europe with a ratification of many European conventions, especially those which represent the unified standard of the European protection of human rights. In the process of ratifying these instruments it is necessary to examine the whole national legal order and to attain its harmony with the permanently developing European legislation. It Is the task of Czechoslovak judicial and administrative organs to be concerned for a harmonization of the domestic legislation protecting an individual with European standards for the protection of human rights. This task is of primary importance not only because thus international sanctions will be avoided but because it will effectively help Czechoslovakia to return to Europe.

The article analyzes the condition for acceptability of individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights, which was introduced by The Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the substantial damage to which the applicant suffered as well as the circumstances that introduce the reservation of paragraphs B clause 3 of the Art. 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and their qualification features.It has been found that the European Court of Human Rights, even assuming that the applicant did not suffer material damage cannot declare as inadmissible any individual claim that raises the question: the adoption of law, interpretation of the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, national right. It has been established that the respect for human rights, even if there is a presumption that the applicant did not suffer material damage, requires announcement as an admissible by the European Court of Human Rights such an individual application, since it has raised issues of a general nature regarding the observance of the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: 1) the necessity to clarify the obligations of the State under the Convention; 2) to compel the respondent State to resolve a structural problem affecting the interests of other persons in the same position as the applicant. The following conditions have been identified in the presence of which respect for human rights does not require consideration of the statement by the European Court of Human Rights: 1) the relevant national legislation and practice changed, and similar issues had already been resolved in other cases that the European Court of Human Rights reviewed; 2) the relevant law was canceled and the statement had only a historical character; 3) The European Court of Human Rights or the Council of Ministers have already considered this issue as a complex issue

Russia has been a member of the Council of Europe (CoE) for 25 years, and of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for 22 years, which is in itself a remarkable achievement on both sides. This article asks the questions: how has this been this possible? And is the close and mostly positive relationship between Russia and the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) about to come to an end? In order to answer these questions, I first provide an overview of the USSR’s late acknowledgment of the need for compliance in its internal affairs with UN standards, and especially the contribution of Mikhail Gorbachev. I follow this with an account of Russia’s accession to the CoE and ratification of the ECHR under Boris Yeltsin, and a snapshot of the popularity for Russians of complaining to Strasbourg. Second, I turn to the very controversial rulings by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (CCRF) and new legislation on the question of the CCRF ruling on the “impossibility” for Russia of implementing judgments of the ECtHR. Third, I analyse the controversial Yukos case. This was in fact the second and last until now such ruling on impossibility. Fourth, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe imposed sanctions on Russia following the illegal annexation by Russian of Crimea. Russia seemed poised to leave or be expelled from the CoE. But in 2019 a controversial deal was done. Fifth, I ask whether President Putin’s 2020 amendments to the 1993 Constitution really pose a threat to Russia’s continuing relationship with the CoE and the ECHR.

This article examines the reform of the justice system in Albania since 2016 through the lens of the accession procedure to the European Union and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in individual cases against Albania. The first part is devoted to the analysis of the general context in which the reform of the justice system in 2016 was implemented in Albania and examines its main elements. The relevant reports of the European Commission regarding Albania are considered in this part with a focus on recommendations concerning the judiciary.The second part analyses the key judgements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the process of reforming the justice system in Albania since 2016 based on individual applications of judges and prosecutors who were dismissed from their positions as a result of the re-evaluation procedure. These judgements include the following cases: Besnik Cani v. Albania, Gashi and Gina v. Albania, Nikëhasani v. Albania, Sevdari v. Albania, and Xhoxhaj v. Albania. In particular, the following aspects were considered: the status of bodies created to reassess judges and prosecutors, their independence and impartiality; as well as the proportionality of the interference in the private life of the applicants.Finally, the article aims to assess the impact of judgements in specific cases of the European Court of Human Rights on the accession procedure of Albania and other candidate states to the European Union. The article scrutinizes the reports of the European Commission regarding other candidate states in terms of the recommendations provided related to the judiciary and the rule of law. The article demonstrates the interrelation between the accession process to the European Union and the relevant judgements of the European Court of Human Rights analysing the judgements and key reports concerning other candidate countries. In particular, the reports of the European Commission concerning Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are considered. It is argued that the conclusions obtained in individual cases regarding the reform of the justice system in Albania should be interpreted in a much broader context of the procedure of accession tothe European Union of other candidate states.

INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the European approach to privacy and data protection. Two things are important to point out from the start. First, there are differences between the right to privacy and the right to data protection, which will be described in more detail below. Perhaps the most prominent difference lies in the material scope. The right to privacy usually does not extend to the collection of nonprivate and non-privacy-sensitive data, whereas the term ‘personal data’, central to most data protection documents, is not limited to private or sensitive information, but extents to any data with which someone could potentially be identified. ‘Even ancillary information, such as “the man wearing a black suit” may identify someone out of the passers-by standing at a traffic light. ’Second, this study will primarily discuss the European perspective and in doing so will refer to documents of both the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE). For privacy, the case law by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will be central and with regard to data protection, the EU's Data Protection Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation, which will replace the Directive over time, will function as the primary (though not exclusive) points of reference. Article 8 ECHR grants a right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The right to data protection is currently protected by the Data Protection Directive, which contains rules for data controllers such as: store data only when necessary, store data safely, process personal data with a legitimate aim, be transparent about the processing activities, etc. It also contains some rights for data subjects, such as the right to have access to personal data, to correct inaccurate data and to object to certain types of data processing.