CJEU - C-306/21 - Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria – Оbedinenie’: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:34, 3 May 2023

CJEU - C-306/21 Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria – Оbedinenie’

Court:	CJEU
Jurisdiction:	European Union
Relevant Law:	Article 2(2)(a) GDPR Article 6(1)(e) GDPR
Decided:
Parties:	Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria – Оbedinenie’
Case Number/Name:	C-306/21 Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria – Оbedinenie’
European Case Law Identifier:
Reference from:
Language:	24 EU Languages
Original Source:	Judgement
Initial Contributor:	n/a

The CJEU held that processing activities in the context of national elections fall within the GDPR. The prohibition to film the vote count can be adopted by a national DPA in light of the data minimisation principle.

English Summary

Facts

The Bulgarian DPA and the Bulgarian Central Election Commission adopted guidelines on national electoral procedures. The guidelines addressed the problem of the processing of personal data by means of video recording in the context of elections and limited such a processing to specific circumstances.

The guidelines are direct implementation of the GDPR. A political party claimed that the guidelines were unlawful, as the GDPR does not apply to national elections, which fall outside the scope of EU law. The Administrative Court of Sofia (Administrativen sad Sofia) annulled some provisions of the guidelines.

The Bulgarian DPA and the Bulgarian Central Election Commission appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (Varhoven administrativen sad). The Supreme Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU.

Holding

The CJEU stressed that the only exceptions to the GDPR scope of application are provided by Article 2(2) and (3) of the GDPR. These exceptions shall be interpreted strictly. In particular, Article 2(2)(b) GDPR states that the regulation does not apply to processing activities falling outside the scope of EU law. However, according to the Court, this provision exempts only activities carried out in the context of national security or related purposes. Activities relating to the organisation of elections do not fall within this category.

In the merits, the CJEU also addressed the question whether a national DPA could limit or prohibit processing activities such as the filming of electoral process, including the vote count.

The Court stated that such processing activities could in principle rely on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, namely processing carried out in the public interest. However, the Bulgarian DPA, by limiting or prohibiting video-recording of vote count and other electoral processes implemented the principle of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. In particular, the ban did not impair the public interest objective, which was to guarantee transparency (and thus lawfulness) of electoral processes. As a matter of fact, the guidelines did not prevent people from being present during the vote count, but only from recording it.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 }}
-See Holding for questions referred.
+The CJEU held that processing activities in the context of national elections fall within the GDPR. The prohibition to film the vote count can be adopted by a national DPA in light of the data minimisation principle.
 ==English Summary==
 === Facts ===
-Facts pending decision.
+The Bulgarian DPA and the Bulgarian Central Election Commission adopted guidelines on national electoral procedures. The guidelines addressed the problem of the processing of personal data by means of video recording in the context of elections and limited such a processing to specific circumstances.
-=== Holding ===
+The guidelines are direct implementation of the GDPR. A political party claimed that the guidelines were unlawful, as the GDPR does not apply to national elections, which fall outside the scope of EU law. The Administrative Court of Sofia (''Administrativen sad Sofia'') annulled some provisions of the guidelines.
-Questions referred:
-Is Article 2(2)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation 1 to be interpreted as precluding the application of that regulation to an ostensibly purely internal situation, such as the holding of elections to the National Assembly, where the subject matter of the protection is the personal data of individuals – citizens of the European Union – and the data processing operations are not restricted to the collection of data in the context of the activity in question?
+The Bulgarian DPA and the Bulgarian Central Election Commission appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (''Varhoven administrativen sad''). The Supreme Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU.
-If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the conclusion of the holding of elections to the National Assembly, which do not appear to fall within the scope of EU law, release controllers, processors and persons who store personal data from their obligations under the regulation, as the sole means of protecting personal data of EU citizens at EU level? Does the applicability of the regulation depend solely on the activity for which the personal data were produced or collected, thereby also leading to the conclusion that its subsequent applicability is precluded?
+=== Holding ===
+The CJEU stressed that the only exceptions to the GDPR scope of application are provided by [[Article 2 GDPR|Article 2(2) and (3) of the GDPR]]. These exceptions shall be interpreted strictly. In particular, [[Article 2 GDPR#2b|Article 2(2)(b) GDPR]] states that the regulation does not apply to processing activities falling outside the scope of EU law. However, according to the Court, this provision exempts only activities carried out in the context of national security or related purposes. Activities relating to the organisation of elections do not fall within this category.
-If the first question is answered in the negative, do Article 6[(1)](e) of the General Data Protection Regulation and the principle of proportionality enshrined in recitals 4 and 129 thereof preclude national rules implementing the regulation, such as those at issue, which preclude and restrict from the outset the possibility of carrying out any video recording during the determination of the election results at polling stations, do not allow for differentiation and regulation of individual elements of the recording process and preclude the possibility of achieving the objectives of the regulation – the protection of personal data of individuals – by other means?
-Alternatively, and in the context of the scope of application of EU law, do Article 6[(1)](e) of the General Data Protection Regulation and the principle of proportionality enshrined in recitals 4 and 129 thereof preclude – in the holding of municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament – national rules implementing that regulation, such as those at issue, which preclude and restrict from the outset the possibility of carrying out any video recording during the determination of the election results at polling stations, do not differentiate and regulate individual elements of the recording process or even allow for such differentiation and regulation, and preclude the possibility of achieving the objectives of the regulation – the protection of personal data of individuals – by other means?
-Does Article 6(1)(e) of the General Data Protection Regulation preclude the categorisation of the activities of ascertaining lawful conduct and determining the results of elections as a task carried out in the public interest which justifies a certain degree of interference, subject to the requirement of proportionality, with regard to the personal data of persons present at polling stations when they perform an official, public task which is regulated by law?
+In the merits, the CJEU also addressed the question whether a national DPA could limit or prohibit processing activities such as the filming of electoral process, including the vote count.
-If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the protection of personal data preclude the introduction of a national statutory prohibition on the collection and processing of personal data, which limits the possibility of carrying out ancillary activities consisting in the video recording of materials, objects or items which do not contain personal data, where the recording process potentially gives rise to the possibility of personal data also being collected during the video recording of persons present at polling stations who are carrying out an activity in the public interest at the relevant time?
+The Court stated that such processing activities could in principle rely on [[Article 6 GDPR#1e|Article 6(1)(e) GDPR]], namely processing carried out in the public interest. However, the Bulgarian DPA, by limiting or prohibiting video-recording of vote count and other electoral processes implemented the principle of data minimisation under [[Article 5 GDPR#1c|Article 5(1)(c) GDPR]]. In particular, the ban did not impair the public interest objective, which was to guarantee transparency (and thus lawfulness) of electoral processes. As a matter of fact, the guidelines did not prevent people from being present during the vote count, but only from recording it.
 == Comment ==