HeLEX: Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies

Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Richards Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF

Other affiliations


Stergios is a DPhil in Socio-Legal Studies candidate and a member of St Cross college, supervised by Professors Jane Kaye and Bettina Lange. His research, funded by the ESRC and the Onassis Foundation, examines the driving forces of administrative discretion in the context of data sharing for social research in the public interest. This enquiry, using the concept of legal culture, proposes to reconceptualise discretion beyond the lawful/unlawful binary. 

Stergios is currently (2017-18) serving as a Graduate Teaching Assistant in Human Rights Law and a co-convenor of the Oxford Socio-Legal Discussion Group

Stergios has completed studies in socio-legal research [MSt (dist.)] and law (MJur) at the University of Oxford and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece [LLB & LLM in Criminal Law (both dist.)]. 



Displaying 1 - 3 of 3. Sorted by year, then title.
Filter by
  • M Mourby, E Mackey, M Elliot and S Aidinlis and others, 'Are ‘pseudonymised’ data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK. ' (2018) Computer Law & Security Review
    There has naturally been a good deal of discussion of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. One issue of interest to all data controllers, and of particular concern for researchers, is whether the GDPR expands the scope of personal data through the introduction of the term ‘pseudonymisation’ in Article 4(5). If all data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of the word (e.g. key-coded) are to be treated as personal data, this would have serious implications for research. Administrative data research, which is carried out on data routinely collected and held by public authorities, would be particularly affected as the sharing of de-identified data could constitute the unconsented disclosure of identifiable information. Instead, however, we argue that the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5) GDPR will not expand the category of personal data, and that there is no intention that it should do so. The definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR is not intended to determine whether data are personal data; indeed it is clear that all data falling within this definition are personal data. Rather, it is Recital 26 and its requirement of a ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ which remains the relevant test as to whether data are personal. This leaves open the possibility that data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of key-coding can still be rendered anonymous. There may also be circumstances in which data which have undergone pseudonymisation within one organisation could be anonymous for a third party. We explain how, with reference to the data environment factors as set out in the UK Anonymisation Network's Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework.
  • M Mourby, S Aidinlis and H Smith, 'Virtues out of necessity? A review of the progress of the UK Data Protection Bill 2017-18' (2017) 167 New Law Journal 11
    A number of claims have been made for the Data Protection Bill, as it serves a number of purposes—modernisation, ensuring data flows post-Brexit, and exercising derogations under the GDPR to create a more ‘nationalised’ law. This comment discusses them and evaluates the progress of the Bill.


Research projects