GDPR and Canon Law—The Impact of European Union Law on the Canonical Systems for the Protection of the Right to Good Reputation and Privacy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article submitted for editorial review entitled GDPR and Canon Law. The Impact of European Union Law on the Canonical Systems for the Protection of the Right to Good Reputation and Privacy is a very interesting study. Without a shadow of a doubt, the proposed topic is timely and very welcome. The methodology adopted is correct. The substantive content at a very good level. Conclusions logical and correctly derived. The article deserves to be published in a scientific journal. It is a significant contribution to the development of the science of law and canon law.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your kind words.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I congratulate you on the topic you have chosen and the way you have presented it. The paper is coherent and well argued. You master both the canonical and legal register.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your kind words.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall, the article would benefit from an analysis of the impact of the cultural-legal peculiarities of individual countries on the models adopted (e.g. concordat traditions). It may be worthwhile to consider adding this thread.
Lines 65-66 – the article states that 'expressly granted the possibility to enact specific regulators', but the GDPR does not actually grant the possibility to regulate one's own data protection law. However, it does allow for the recognition of the law of a religious association as lex specialis to the GDPR. The GDPR does not violate a religious association's statute in a country, e.g. autonomy, i.e. the right to issue its own law.
Line 81-81 - "for safeguarding human inviolability" - there should be "the inviolable dignity of the human person", as it is literally in the Preface of the Polish Decree.
Line 367 - there is can. 57 - and it should be can. 57 § 1.
With regard to the legal and comparative issues raised by the author, I would like to recommend for your consideration the commentary to the Polish decree by Piotr Skonieczny, where many legal and comparative remarks are made or his article https://doi.org/10.15633/acan.2474, which presents comparisons of decrees including Italian, and German ones.
In conclusion, the author uses a considerable number of footnotes in this section, and yet this section (as its name indicates) is supposed to collect conclusions, not to present an argumentation supported by footnotes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your guidance and suggestions. I have addressed all your comments, and the modifications have been highlighted in yellow.
Reading Skonieczny's works was particularly insightful, and I have incorporated relevant references into both the main text and the bibliography. In the conclusions, I have limited the bibliographic references to those strictly necessary.
I hope the revisions are sufficient, and I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration.
Best regards.
