GC - T‑451/20 - Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission
| GC - T‑451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | GC (European Union) |
| Jurisdiction: | European Union |
| Relevant Law: | Article 6(1)(c) GDPR Article 52(1) Charther Article 7 Charter Article 8 ECHR |
| Decided: | 24.05.2023 |
| Published: | 24.05.2023 |
| Parties: | Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd European Commission |
| National Case Number/Name: | T‑451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EU:T:2023:276 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | English |
| Original Source: | Curia (in English) |
| 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!
