CJEU - T‑451/20 - Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, v. European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:37, 15 June 2023

CJEU - T‑451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, v. European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Court:	CJEU
Jurisdiction:	European Union
Relevant Law:	Article 6(1)(c) GDPR 52(1) Charther Article 7 Charter Article 8 ECHR
Decided:	24.05.2023
Parties:	Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd European Commission
Case Number/Name:	T‑451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, v. European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:EU:T:2023:276
Reference from:
Language:	24 EU Languages
Original Source:	Judgement
Initial Contributor:	n/a

Meta sought an annulment of a decision by the European Commission alleging, inter alia, unjustified interference with the right to privacy under Article 7 CFR. The General Court rejected Meta’s claims.

English Summary

Facts

The European Commission made information requests to Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Meta) on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Following the requests, the Commission adopted a further decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.

Under the decision, the Commission requested Meta to provide, inter alia, a number of internal documents meeting certain cumulative criteria. With regard to providing the information, the Commission proposed a separate procedure for sensitive documents which, according to Meta, contained only personal information wholly unconnected with its commercial activities. Those documents would be examined first in a virtual data room and placed on the file only after having been deemed relevant for the investigation. Moreover, Meta had the possibility to redact documents containing personal information.

Meta sought for the annulment of the decision before the General Court.

Essentially, Meta relied on four pleas in law – of which one was Meta alleging, inter alia, infringements of the right to privacy. Meta claimed that, by requiring the production of numerous irrelevant documents of a private nature, the decision infringes, inter alia, its right to privacy and that of its staff and third parties, as protected by Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR. Furthermore, Meta argued, inter alia, that the Commision’s interference is not provided for by law. Meta claimed that where it would be required to provide information, which Meta argued to be irrelevant for the purposes of the investigation, it would in fact contravene Article 6(1)(c) GDPR.

The Commission contended that the Court should declare Meta’s head of claim inadmissible and dismiss the action.

Holding

The Court examined whether the contested decision complies with Article 7 of the Charter and the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter. Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

According to the Court, Meta cannot question the fact that the limitation to the right to privacy would not be provided by law in this case: the Commission adopted its decision on the basis of Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty which gives the Commission the power to adopt decisions requesting such information.

Furthermore, in light of the principle of proportionality, the Court considered that the decision adopted by the Commission does meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the EU: the decision expressed the exercise of the Commission’s powers under the said regulation, which contributes to maintaining competition intended by the EU treaties, which the Court viewed businesses to have an absolute duty to comply with.

After an exhaustive assessment in light of Article 52(1) of the Charter, the Court held that Meta had not established that the decision constituted an unjustified interference with its privacy or that of members of its staff or of other persons. The Court rejected Meta's claims in this regard.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 }}
-Meta seeked for an annulment of a decision by the European Commission alleging, inter alia, infringements of the right to privacy. The General Court rejected Meta’s claims.
+Meta sought an annulment of a decision by the European Commission alleging, inter alia, unjustified interference with the right to privacy under Article 7 CFR. The General Court rejected Meta’s claims.
 ==English Summary==
 === Facts ===
-The European Commission made information requests to Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Meta) on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Following the requests, the Commission adopted a further decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. Following such decision, the Commission requested Meta to provide, inter alia, a number of internal documents meeting certain cumulative criteria. In essence, the requested documents were those prepared by or for, or received by, certain depositaries (custodians).
+The European Commission made information requests to Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Meta) on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Following the requests, the Commission adopted a further decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
-Under the decision, Meta was to supply the Commission with the information specified in it. Additionally, the Commission sent Meta a letter proposing a separate procedure for the production of sensitive documents which, according to Meta, contained only personal information wholly unconnected with its commercial activities. Those documents would be placed on the file only after having been examined in a virtual data room.
-Thereafter, Meta contested the decision by bringing action before the General Court seeking for an annulment of the decision.
+Under the decision, the Commission requested Meta to provide, inter alia, a number of internal documents meeting certain cumulative criteria. With regard to providing the information, the Commission proposed a separate procedure for sensitive documents which, according to Meta, contained only personal information wholly unconnected with its commercial activities. Those documents would be examined first in a virtual data room and placed on the file only after having been deemed relevant for the investigation. Moreover, Meta had the possibility to redact documents containing personal information.
-Essentially, Meta relied on four pleas in law – of which one was Meta alleging, inter alia, infringements of the right to privacy. Meta claimed that, by requiring the production of numerous irrelevant documents of a private nature, the decision infringes, inter alia, its right to privacy and that of its staff and third parties, as protected by Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR. Furthermore, Meta argued, inter alia, that the Commision’s interference is not provided for by law. Meta claimed that if it would be required to provide information which Meta argued to be irrelevant for the purposes of the investigation, it would contravene [[Article 6 GDPR#1c|Article 6(1)(c) GDPR]].
-In turn, the Commission contended that the Court should declare Meta’s head of claim inadmissible and dismiss the action.
+Meta sought for the annulment of the decision before the General Court.
+Essentially, Meta relied on four pleas in law – of which one was Meta alleging, inter alia, infringements of the right to privacy. Meta claimed that, by requiring the production of numerous irrelevant documents of a private nature, the decision infringes, inter alia, its right to privacy and that of its staff and third parties, as protected by Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR. Furthermore, Meta argued, inter alia, that the Commision’s interference is not provided for by law. Meta claimed that where it would be required to provide information, which Meta argued to be irrelevant for the purposes of the investigation, it would in fact contravene [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(1)(c) GDPR]].
+The Commission contended that the Court should declare Meta’s head of claim inadmissible and dismiss the action.
 === Holding ===
-The Court took the view, that it is necessary to examine whether the contested decision complies with Article 7 of the Charter and satisfies the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter. Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
+The Court examined whether the contested decision complies with Article 7 of the Charter and the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter. Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
-The Court addressed whether there is a legal basis for the interference with privacy. Article 52(1) of the Charter requires that the limitation on the right to respect for private life must be provided for by law, which in the present case, the Court found to exist.
-Meta had claimed that if it would be required to provide information which Meta argued to be irrelevant for the purposes of the investigation, it would contravene [[Article 6 GDPR#1c|Article 6(1)(c) GDPR]]. The Court viewed that Meta cannot question the fact that the limitation (to the right to privacy) in question would not be provided by law, because, the Commission adopted its decision on the basis of Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003.
+According to the Court, Meta cannot question the fact that the limitation to the right to privacy would not be provided by law in this case: the Commission adopted its decision on the basis of Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty which gives the Commission the power to adopt decisions requesting such information.
-It followed, that the Court held that the decision in question constitutes an interference to the right to privacy – provided for by law – within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter, since Regulation 1/2003 gives the Commission the power to adopt decisions requesting such information.
-Furthermore, the Court addressed, inter alia, whether objectives of general interest recognised by the EU were pursued and found that the decision adopted by the Commission does meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the EU.
+Furthermore, in light of the principle of proportionality, the Court considered that the decision adopted by the Commission does meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the EU: the decision expressed the exercise of the Commission’s powers under the said regulation, which contributes to maintaining competition intended by the EU treaties, which the Court viewed businesses to have an absolute duty to comply with.
-The decision was found to express the exercise of the Commission’s powers under the regulation, which contributes to maintaining competition intended by the EU treaties, which the Court viewed businesses to have an absolute duty to comply with.
+After an exhaustive assessment in light of Article 52(1) of the Charter, the Court held that Meta had not established that the decision constituted an unjustified interference with its privacy or that of members of its staff or of other persons. The Court rejected Meta's claims in this regard.
 == Comment ==