CJEU - C‑468/10 - ASNEF
| CJEU - C‑468/10 ASNEF | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | CJEU |
| Jurisdiction: | European Union |
| Relevant Law: | Article 7 Dir.95/46 Article 10(2)(a) and (2)(b) Royal Decree 1720/2007 |
| Decided: | 24.11.2011 |
| Parties: | ASNEF |
| Case Number/Name: | C‑468/10 ASNEF |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EU:C:2011:777 |
| Reference from: | |
| Language: | 24 EU Languages |
| Original Source: | Judgement |
| Initial Contributor: | elu |
ASNEF and FECEMD challenged the Royal Decree 1720/2007, alleging that its rules on data transfer without consent conflicted with Dir.95/46. The CJEU ruled that Dir.95/46 precludes national rules imposing additional requirements beyond its scope.
English Summary
Facts
ASNEF and FECEMD challenged the Spanish Royal Decree 1720/2007. They claimed that Article 10(2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Royal decree, allowing extra-EU data transfers without the consent of the data subject in specific instances provided by national law (i.e when the processing serves a legitimate interest of the controller, when it is necessary to fulfil a duty imposed on them, when the data is public accessible) is compatible with Article 7(f) Dir.95/46, providing legal basis for data processing.
Two questions were referred to the CJEU:
1. Must Article 7(f) Dir.95/46 be interpreted as precluding the application of national rules which, in the absence of the interested party’s consent, and to allow processing of his personal data that is necessary to pursue a legitimate interest of the controller or of third parties to whom the data will be disclosed, not only require that fundamental rights and freedoms should not be prejudiced, but also require the data to appear in public sources?
2. Are the conditions for conferring on it direct effect met by Article 7(f) Dir.95/46?
Holding
Answer to the first question
The objective of ensuring an equivalent level of protection in all Member States that Article 7 Dir.95/46 sets out an exhaustive and restrictive list of cases in which the processing of personal data can be regarded as being lawful.
Thus, Member States cannot add new principles relating to the lawfulness of the processing of personal data to Article 7 Dir.95/46 or impose additional requirements that have the effect of amending the scope of one of the six principles provided for in Article 7 Dir.95/46.
The CJEU makes a distinction between national measures providing for additional requirements amending the scope of a principle laid out in Article 7 Dir.95/46, and national measures providing for a mere classification of these principles.
While the former are precluded, the latter enjoy a certain margin of discretion.
In fact, the margin of discretion which Member States have pursuant to Article 5 Dir.95/46 can therefore be used only in accordance with the objective pursued by Directive 95/46 of maintaining a balance between the free movement of personal data and the protection of private life (C-101/01 Lindqvist, §97).
In the case at hand, the CJEU held that Article 7(f) Dir.95/46 precludes a Member State from excluding, in a categorical and generalised manner, the possibility of processing certain categories of personal data, without allowing the opposing rights and interests at issue to be balanced against each other in a particular case. Thus, Article 10(2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Royal decree is incompatible with Article 7(f) Dir.95/46.
Answer to the second question
The CJEU held that Article 7(f) Dir.95/46 is a provision that is sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by national courts. Thus, Article 7(f) Dir.95/46 states am unconditional obligation (C-465/00 Osterreichischer Rundfunk and Others, §100) and thus has direct effect.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
