CJEU - C-102/20 - StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH

From GDPRhub
CJEU - C-102/20 StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH
Cjeulogo.png
Court: CJEU
Jurisdiction: European Union
Relevant Law:
Article 2(h) Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 13(1) Directive 2002/58/EC
Decided:
Parties: StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH
eprimo GmbH
Case Number/Name: C-102/20 StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH
European Case Law Identifier:
Reference from: BGH (Germany)
Language: 24 EU Languages
Original Source: Judgement
Initial Contributor: n/a

See Holding for questions referred.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

Facts pending.

Holding[edit | edit source]

Questions referred:

1. Does the concept of ‘sending’ within the meaning of Article 2(h) of Directive 2002/58/EC cover a situation in which a message is not transmitted by a user of an electronic communications service, via a service provider, to the electronic ‘address’ of a second user, but, as a consequence of the opening of the password-protected web page of an email account, is automatically displayed by ad servers in certain areas designated for that purpose in the email inbox of a randomly selected user (inbox advertising)?

2. Does the collection of a message within the meaning of Article 2(h) of Directive 2002/58/EC presuppose that, after becoming aware of the existence of a message, the recipient triggers the programmatically prescribed transmission of the message data by making an intentional collection request, or is it sufficient for the appearance of a message in an email account inbox to be triggered by the user opening the password-protected web page of his e-mail account?

3. Does a message constitute electronic mail within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC even where it is not sent to an individual recipient already specifically identified prior to transmission but is displayed in the inbox of a randomly selected user?

4. Is electronic mail used for the purposes of direct marketing within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC only where the user is found to be the subject of a burden that is greater than a nuisance?

5. Does individual advertising meet the conditions governing the presence of ‘solicitation’, for the purposes of the first sentence of point 26 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, only where a customer is contacted via a medium traditionally used for individual communication between a sender and a recipient, or is it sufficient if — as with the advertisement at issue in the case in point — an individual connection is established by the fact that the advertisement is displayed in the inbox of a private email account, and thus in an area in which the customer expects to find messages addressed to him personally?

Comment[edit | edit source]

Share your comments here!

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

Share blogs or news articles here!