CJEU - C-184/20 - Vyriausioji Tarnybinės Etikos Komisija

CJEU - C‑184/20 - Vyriausioji Tarnybinės Etikos Komisija
Court:	CJEU
Jurisdiction:	European Union
Relevant Law:	Article 6(1) GDPR Article 6(3) GDPR Article 9(1) GDPR Decision: 2008/801/EC The Lietuvos Respublikos viešųjų ir privačių interesų derinimo valstybinėje tarnyboje įstatymas Nr. VIII-371 (Law No VIII-371 of the Republic of Lithuania on the reconciliation of public and private interests in the public service) The United Nations Convention against Corruption - Resolution 58/4 of the United Nations General Assembly of 31 October 2003
Decided:	01.08.2022
Parties:	OT Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija (Chief Official Ethics Commission) Fondas ‘Nevyriausybinių organizacijų informacijos ir paramos centras’
Case Number/Name:	C‑184/20 - Vyriausioji Tarnybinės Etikos Komisija
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:EU:C:2022:601
Reference from:	Vilnius District Administrative Court
Language:	24 EU Languages
Original Source:	AG Opinion Judgement
Initial Contributor:	Alexander Smith

For Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, measures must be appropriate and proportionate.

The publication of personal data which is likely to indirectly disclose an individual's sexual orientation constitutes processing of special categories of personal data.

English Summary

Facts

Pursuant to the United Nations Convention against Corruption and Council Decision 2008/801/EC of 25 September 2008, Lithuania created National Laws to document conflicts of interests of those working in the public service or in the public interest.

These laws required an individual to provide a details about themselves and; their spouse, co-habitee, or partner to the Chief Official Ethics Commission. This included (amongst others) name, personal identification number, social security number, employment status, membership or undertakings with trade unions and/or political parties. The Chief Official Ethics Commission would then publish information on a public website (not including identification numbers, membership or undertakings with trade unions or political parties) as a 'declaration'. Notably, the published information, whilst removing what was obviously special category information would still include the name of their spouse, co-habitee, or partner.

The data subject (OT) challenged this, arguing that the publication of the name alone would indirectly disclose the sexual orientation of the data subject.

There were two questions referred to the CJEU:

1 - Should Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, with regard to Article 6(3) GDPR, including the requirement that the Member State law must be proportionate, be interpreted as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of declarations and their publication on the website, thereby providing access to all who have internet access?

2 - Should Article 9(1) GDPR, considering Article 9(2) GDPR, including Article 9(2)(g), also with regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of data relating to declarations which may disclose personal data, including data which make it possible to determine a person’s political views, trade union membership, sexual orientation and other personal information?

Advocate General Opinion

The Advocate General's opinion to each question was:

1 - The provisions must be interpreted as being opposed to such a national law/regulation when that measure is not appropriate, necessary, or proportionate.

2- The provisions must be interpreted in the sense that this use of special category personal data is capable of indirectly communicating sensitive data.

Holding

The CJEU's holding for each question was:

1 - The relevant provisions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the online publication of the declarations, in so far as, that publication concerns name-specific data relating to his or her spouse, cohabitee or partner, or to persons who are close relatives of the declarant, [or are otherwise required to be listed under the legislation].

2 - The relevant provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the publication, on the website of the public authority, of personal data which is liable to disclose indirectly the sexual orientation of a natural person, constitutes processing of special categories of personal data.

Comment

This was a referral by the Lithuanian national courts to the CJEU for clarification under Article 267 TFEU.

The Advocate General's Opinion was translated using a machine translator.

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!