CJEU: Duty to inform limited to operations where operator determines purposes and means
Original title: FASHION ID GmbH & Co. KG v. VERBRAUCHERZENTRALE NRW eV
Judgment
Duty to inform: It is the duty of the operator to inform, but the information that must be provided to the data subject need “relate only to the operation or set of operations involving the processing of personal data in respect of which that operator actually determines the purposes and means”. The information must be given by the controller immediately, that is to say, when the data are collected. (¶¶100–101 and ¶¶103–106)
Full text 2 paragraphs
## Court Summary Interpretation: The exceptions to material scope of the Data Protection Directive (activities outside of EU law/processing operations “which concern public security, defense, State security and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law” + the household exception) must be interpreted narrowly but the derogation related to ‘journalistic activities’ must be interpreted broadly. Processing for Journalistic Purposes: ‘Journalistic activities’ are those which have as their purpose the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium which is used to transmit them (see, Satakunnan and Satamedia). (¶53) The processing in this case “may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes […] in so far as it is apparent from that video that the sole object of that recording and publication thereof is the disclosure of information, opinions or ideas to the public” this being a matter which was referred back to the Member State court to determine.
(¶69) ## Excerpt 53 It follows from the Court’s case-law that ‘journalistic activities’ are those which have as their purpose the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium which is used to transmit them (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 December 2008, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, C‑73/07, EU:C:2008:727, paragraph 61). 69 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 9 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that factual circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, that is to say, the video recording of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that recorded video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, within the meaning of that provision, in so far as it is apparent from that video that the sole object of that recording and publication thereof is the disclosure of information, opinions or ideas to the public, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
How it connects
References
- Art. 10
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 7 November 2013.#Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium).#Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 10 and 11 — Obligation to inform — Article 13(1)(d) and (g) — Exceptions — Scope of exceptions — Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 15(1).#Case C‑47