The ruling recalled that the National Intelligence Law (25,520) orders that institution and other similar institutions to inexcusably frame their activities within the requirements of the Personal Data Protection Law.
The case in question consists of a request for information regarding a retirement procedure, in which the Court confirmed a judgment of Chamber I of the National Chamber of Appeals in The Federal Administrative Litigation in the case "R.P., R. D.c / Estado Nacional – Secretaría de Inteligencia del Estado".
In that case, it had been decided that the plaintiff had the right to know whether the Intelligence Secretariat of the Presidency of the Nation had in its files information regarding his personal data, while providing that the intervening judge of first instance should intimate that agency to send the required information.
The Chamber had also warned that the judge, at the request of the plaintiff, could take personal and direct knowledge of the acts that the SIDE acknowledged having, although with the obligation to maintain their confidentiality, as provided for in article 40, paragraph 2, of Law 25,326 (Law on Protection of Personal Data).
The plaintiff had brought a habeas data action on the basis of article 43 of the National Constitution. The purpose of the lawsuit was to know if the aforementioned agency had in its files information of interest for the calculation of his retirement for the period between 1961 and 1973, in accordance with what is determined by Decree 4.827/58.
The Court held, in line with the ruling of the Attorney General of the Nation, that Article 43 of the Constitution protects personal identity and guarantees that the interested party becomes aware of the data referred to him and their purpose, in public or private records that provide reports. It also authorizes it to demand its deletion, rectification, confidentiality or updating.
The high court rejected the State's argument that all side intelligence information is contemplated in Article 17 of Law 25,326, which allows the denial of the provision of data when the defense of the Nation, order or public security could be affected.
In this regard, he pointed out that excluding from constitutional protection those data that State agencies keep outside the access of individuals would entail the absurd consequence of offering legal action only in cases where it is not necessary.
The Court said that the aforementioned guarantee of this information finds its limit in certain specific circumstances, such as the nature of the functions carried out by the SIDE or when the protection of national defense, public security or the repression of crimes is at stake, as provided for in Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the cited law, which must be specifically invoked by the holder of the required dependency.
He also stressed that Law 25,520 (National Intelligence Law) does not alter what was said, since it established that the National Intelligence System must strictly comply with the National Constitution, in its chapters I and II, and with the legal norms in force.
It considered in this regard that regardless of the fact that the activity of national intelligence consists of obtaining, collecting, systematizing and analyzing specific information regarding facts, threats, risks and conflicts that affect the external or internal security of the Nation, any denial of access to data must be based on the reasons indicated in the aforementioned article 17 of Law 25,326.
The National Intelligence Law, the Court said, in addition to limiting the processing of personal data to cases in which it is strictly necessary for the fulfillment of legally assigned missions, orders intelligence agencies to inexcusably frame their activities within the requirements of the Personal Data Protection Law.
Access the full Ruling.
Source: Infobae
