First of all: apoligies for late reply, I've been busy.myurr wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024, 21:20I'm not sure I follow your logic. Red Bull could ask each participant in the investigation for permission to hand over the portion of the report relating to their case to the FIA. As a data controller they can enter into agreement with the FIA (if one isn't already in place, which it likely would be given the existing data sharing) to ensure that the information is treated appropriately and suitably protected. Potentially they only need permission from each of the data subjects.
You would presume that the complainant would be happy to enter into that agreement. I do not believe Horner could refuse as a signatory to the sporting regulations and ISC. He has to comply with any investigation.
But the thing is: He really doesn't. He can deny it on privacy reasons, and take it to court if necessary. People seem to completely overestimate the FIAs reach on this. They do not have unlimited investigatory power, even if their rules says it.
It's completely reasonable to deny them access to texts of extremely private nature. To give a hyperbole, if the FIA requested to set up security cameras in Horners private home for the purpose of an investigation, by your logic, he wouldn't be able to deny that either, because the FIAs rules say he must comply with any investigation. Do you really think that would hold up in court? Of course not.
Not really. This is you completely misunderstanding GDPR.myurr wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024, 21:20You could argue that they don't even need that - under the GDPR RBR need to demonstrate a lawful basis for sharing the information, which can include sharing private information with a regulator for the purposes of oversight. Article 6 sets out a couple of scenarios that can apply, including the data controller (Red Bull) needing to comply with a legal obligation (e.g. investigation under the ISC).
If you have to boil down GDPR to two basic principles, it's "consent" and "necessity". As a rule of thumb, you need consent to share data, and in cases you don't, you can only do so if you can argue or demonstrate that it is absolutely necessary for the processing of the data.
The type of data is particularly relevant here. GDPR makes a lot of out protecting data, which carries a high degree of risk of the data subject. Specifically, data of highly private nature, including - but not limited to - nature relating to the sex life of a data subject is very highly protected in the GDPR. This is laid out in Article 9 of the GDPR which stipulates:
Article 9 does contain a list of exceptions, but none of them apply here. This is the type of data that is classified for the highest protection under the GDPR, and a sporting body will have absolutely no legal claim to these data. Red Bull is required by law to protect these data. The reason the GDPR was crafted to begin with was to protect sensitive data like that in the first place from being shared, particularly for commercial interests.1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
And that's just looking at the GDPR. There's likely privacy laws that extend protections beyond the GDPR - but I'm not an expert on these, so i won't comment on them. And as discussed earlier, given that this is a case that traverses several jurisdictions (Austria, Great Britain, France, so both EU and non-EU states), it's a fairly complicated matter. I think even actual lawyers will be somewhat in the dark here. But i can't imagine it turning out in the FIAs favor if they try.
Not when the non-compliance is done for legitimate legal reasons, which is what I've argued all the time.myurr wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024, 21:20About the only thing I think could block the sharing of the report is if the report is owned entirely by Red Bull GmbH, where the legal entity that is signed up to the FIA's oversight is Red Bull Racing / Red Bull Technology. That latter entity is, however, ultimately Horner's employer and responsible for the decision to retain him. If they defer that decision directly to the parent company then they need to be able to justify that decision. Non-compliance / obstruction of an FIA investigation wouldn't be a good look for continuing to justify that decision.
I believe you've got this upside down. You believe that RBR has to justify keeping Horner. They don't. Red Bull Racing doesn't have to justify anything to the FIA. Rather, it's the FIA that has to justify their action if they wish to punish Horner or Red Bull. And if they can't investigate, they can't do that.
Horner has a reasonable right to privacy, especially for particularly personal matters, and any attempt to dive into those matters without a proper legal course - no matter what the FIA rules say - is gonna be overtuned in court. Any reasonable court will value Horners right to privacy - particularly about his sex life - higher than a sporting bodies interest.
Hardly. I think Horners lawyers would have a fairly easy time with this one.myurr wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024, 21:20Whatever the actual path that is taken I wouldn't say anything is clear cut at this stage, and none of us can definitively rule out any of those paths. The only thing that would be certain, should the FIA act, is that a lot of lawyers are going to earn some very big fees arguing over all the applicable legal agreements, rules, regulations, and laws that need to be complied with and taken into account.
Hence, the FIA is likely not to bother in the first place.