同一数据在诉讼程序转化后的使用限制及证成

Use Restrictions and Certification of the Same Data after Transformation of Proceedings

为限制公权力对公民个人数据的无限度使用,目的约束原则主张公权力机关对公民个人数据的处理(使用)行为不能背离最初的目的设定。鉴于警察机构的双重功能属性,警方在行政执法和刑事司法领域收集数据的目的不尽相同,前者数据收集的目的是危害防卫,后者是追诉犯罪。在“行刑衔接”以及“行刑反向衔接”的诉讼程序转化中,个人数据的处理(使用)要考虑目的约束原则的限制。德国联邦最高法院2017年作出的“传奇控制”的判决,加之《德国刑事诉讼法》新修订的479条第2款,呈现出德国利用假定替代干预原则的思路论证“目的改变”下数据使用的合法性。假定替代干预原则可以为我国从非刑事诉讼程序中收集的个人数据、技术侦查措施下收集的证据以及“偶然发现”在后续刑事诉讼程序中的使用提供理论上更精当的论证方案。与此同时,在行刑反向衔接后,个人数据的使用亦需要限制。

To control the unlimited use of citizens'personal data by public power,the principle of purpose constraint advocates that the processing(use)of citizens'personal data by public power organs should not deviate from the initial purpose setting.There is also room for the application of the principle of purpose constraint in the fields of administrative law enforcement and criminal justice.Given the dual functional attributes of police agencies,the police collect data for different purposes in the administrative law enforcement and criminal justice fields,namely for defense against harm in the former field and for prosecution of crimes in the latter field.Therefore,the limitations of the principle of purpose constraint should be taken into account in the processing(use)of personal data in the conversion of administrative proceedings into criminal proceedings and of criminal proceedings into administrative proceedings.In particular,the use in criminal proceedings of personal data collected in"non-criminal proceedings'is subject to the original purpose for which the data are collected,while the use in administrative law enforcement proceedings of personal data originally collected in criminal proceedings is also subject to specific conditions.On the premise that the German Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to personal data self-determination as a fundamental right,the German Code of Criminal Procedure also pays attention to the purposes for which personal data are collected and used,and emphasizes compliance with the procedures for the collection of personal data.Once the use of data crosses the procedural threshold and it can be proved that the purpose of the use of the data is different from the purpose for which the data was collected(from"defense against harm"into"prosecution of crime"or from"prosecution of crime"into"defense against crime"or"prevention of criminal prosecution"),the use of the data in subsequent proceedings requires further justification.In the case of Germany,the question of whether and how the same data can be used after the conversion of proceedings is justified by the idea of a"hypothetical alternative intervention".This paper explains the presentation of the"hypothetical alternative intervention"in German criminal proceedings in light of the"Legend Control"judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court in 2017,together with the newly amended 8479 II of the German Code of Criminal Procedure,with a view to providing a basis for the development of the"hypothetical alternative intervention".This is intended to provide a theoretical justification for the use of personal data collected in non-criminal proceedings,evidence collected under technical investigative measures,and"accidental discoveries"in subsequent proceedings;at the same time,the use of personal data needs to be restricted when criminal proceedings are converted into administrative proceedings.