Data Protection and Religious Freedom in the EU in the Context of the Catholic Church in Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI'm fully convinced by the author and the ovarall impact is that this one is a fairly well written article. Its English is of a high level, lucide and comprehensible. However, it is highly recommended to expose clearly the problematic parts of the Articles 91 and 17, by citing the texts of the GDPR document. Without it, the simple mention of these articles does not say anything to the non-experts. The exposition of the very meaning of these articles would highlite the problems analysed later.
For further researches in this field I would like to recommend to the author the book "Religion and Law in Hungary" (2015) by Balázs Schanda, published in 2015 by Wolters Kluwer.
Author Response
Comment: However, it is highly recommended to expose clearly the problematic parts of the Articles 91 and 17, by citing the texts of the GDPR document.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have cited the aforementioned articles in the text. (text in red) Thank you for the tip about the book.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper addresses up-to-date and relevant theme, but can/should be improved in following areas:
1) It ends nicely with specific more specific (deals with a more particular thematic) and more practice-oriented (how the articles of GDPR are applied in practice) and therefore also with more positive approach, but it starts with general arguments about EU law on religion, which either remain declarative (not duly and sufficiently covered based on literature, e.g. Norman Doe, Law and Religion in Europe, 2011, kind of way) or contradicts with the arguments later in the text (where EU is found to have principles some principles, that apply for ecclesiastic laws and-or religious associations, such as religious equality). One option is to drop the general arguments “EU does not deal at all” at all, or if to keep them, then they need to be consistently and coherently presented and used.
2) Paper tends to have an advocacy position from mostly Catholic and-or Catholic Polish perspective. Nothing wrong with such a perspective, but there is no mention of such perspective in title or abstract, and the other religious communities and traditions (particularly Islam comes to mind) are not dealt sufficiently at all. Again, the situation is better at the very end of the paper, where laws and practices are discussed in cross-country comparison. Such approach and perspective should be throughout the paper.
3) What is the specific contribution of the paper, when it starts with claims about errors in practice and ends with more positive assessments regarding the practice, and most of the argumentation deals with potential problems (what can be wrong). In this aspect, the contribution would be stronger and more persuasive, when the overall argumentation and claim is not in the name of all or any religious associations and all or any country-level ecclesial law, but are based on and present the case of specific religious association and specific country/countries as cases, because as it stands, the paper does not discuss the thematic comprehensively anyway.
Author Response
Comment 1: It ends nicely with specific more specific (deals with a more particular thematic) and more practice-oriented (how the articles of GDPR are applied in practice) and therefore also with more positive approach, but it starts with general arguments about EU law on religion, which either remain declarative (not duly and sufficiently covered based on literature, e.g. Norman Doe, Law and Religion in Europe, 2011…
Response 1: I would like to express my gratitude for drawing attention to this issue and for the guidance on literature. The general arguments on EU law on religion have been corrected and enriched with suggested and new literature. All other suggestions are applied (text in green). I have thoroughly revised the section on EU principles to ensure consistency throughout the paper. The contradictions you pointed out have been eliminated to present a more coherent analysis.
Comment 2: Paper tends to have an advocacy position from mostly Catholic and-or Catholic Polish perspective. Nothing wrong with such a perspective,
Response 2: I agree with this criticism. In the amendments to the article in many places, I tried to show a broader perspective (text in green). This approach strengthens the analysis and provides a more balanced view of religious associations across Europe.
Comment 3: What is the specific contribution of the paper, when it starts with claims about errors in practice and ends with more positive assessments regarding the practice, and most of the argumentation deals with potential problems (what can be wrong).
Response 3: I consider the suggestion to be valuable. I have corrected the article in accordance with it (text in green). The paper now focuses on specific case studies from Poland to illustrate the broader principles. This approach allows for more precise claims and avoids overgeneralizations that weakened the original version.
I would like to express my agreement with all the criticisms presented. They are valuable and accurate, providing exactly the guidance needed to improve the scholarly quality of this work. Thank you for your constructive feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally speaking, the article is well-researched and written. The author stated clearly the main objective of the paper, the claim, and how he/she intends to execute the article.
However, one problem I have with the article is the author's claim of "wrong interpretation" of articles 91 and 17 of GDPR by certain lawyers or scholars, as referenced in the article (See section 3 of the article). The question is: Who has the epistemic and judicial authority for the right interpretation of the GDPR? Is it a matter of individual semantic and/or legal understanding and interpretation of the GDPR articles? If this is the case, the author's own interpretation could be as wrong or right as those critiqued. So, for the author to clearly adjudge others' interpretation of articles 91 and 17, I think there should be stronger judicial pronouncements and/or adjudication on the articles in question if not every opinion could be as right/wrong as those of others--hence a mere intellectual gymnastics.
Thus, the author could clearly state, I suggest, that he/she differs from the interpretations of his/her critiques and adduce his/her argument rather than adjudging that they are wrong in their interpretations. Except the author is standing on adjudications on the said articles 91 and 17.
Author Response
Comment 1: The question is: Who has the epistemic and judicial authority for the right interpretation of the GDPR? Is it a matter of individual semantic and/or legal understanding and interpretation of the GDPR articles? If this is the case, the author's own interpretation could be as wrong or right as those critiqued.
Response 1: The GDPR is interpreted by various actors, with the courts as the ultimate and final authority. Interpretations by legal experts are useful, and one can propose a new interpretation by explaining one's view and citing arguments in favour of it, or by criticizing the existing interpretation. I chose the latter approach as I believe false interpretations are widespread. I tried to present and argue my point of view. The judicial authorities, through vigorous dispute, will have a spectrum of solutions, and they will ultimately determine the correct interpretation.
Comment 2: Thus, the author could clearly state, I suggest, that he/she differs from the interpretations of his/her critiques and adduce his/her argument rather than adjudging that they are wrong in their interpretations. Except the author is standing on adjudications on the said articles 91 and 17.
Response 2: I would like to express my gratitude for this comment. Hedging in academic discourse is an important thing. In the article, I have attempted to moderate the direct statements that the interpretations of others are 'wrong', in the hope that avoiding confrontation may be conducive to constructive discussion, allowing for a more precise expression of the degree of certainty of assertions. (text in blue)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have addressed all issues raised in the review, the research focus is more precise and the treatment of the subject more coherent throughout the paper. Additionally, it has also elaborated the comparative dimension in the analysis.
