Case Law · CJEU EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.
Patrick BREYER v. BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND, (“BREYER”)
Summary
Legitimate interest: Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 “precludes Member States from excluding, categorically and in general, the possibility of processing certain categories of personal data without allowing the opposing rights and interests at issue to be balanced against each other in a particular case. Thus, Member States cannot definitively prescribe, for certain categories of personal data, the result of the balancing of the opposing rights and interests, without allowing a different result
How it connects
References
- GOOGLE SPAIN SL V. AEPD (THE DPA) & MARIO COSTEJA GONZALEZ, 13.May.2014 (“GOOGLE v. Spain”)
- Art. 7
- Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen v Planet49 GmbH
- Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen v Planet49 GmbH
- Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
- Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV
Related across sources
Enforcement AEPD (Spain) - PS/00249/2025 Enforcement AEPD fines El Español for disclosing minor's identity in assault video Enforcement CNIL fines energy supplier for mishandling data subject access and objection requests Enforcement AEPD investigates University of Navarra over student COVID-19 vaccination status requests Enforcement Italian DPA sanctions Lusha Systems for processing contact data without consent in B2B Guidance Guidelines on processing of personal data through blockchain technologies
Full text
summary
Legitimate interest: Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 “precludes Member States from excluding, categorically and in general, the possibility of processing certain categories of personal data without allowing the opposing rights and interests at issue to be balanced against each other in a particular case. Thus, Member States cannot definitively prescribe, for certain categories of personal data, the result of the balancing of the opposing rights and interests, without allowing a different result by virtue of the particular circumstances of an individual case” (see, ASNEF paragraphs 47 and 48). (¶62).
¶62 excerpt
Article 7(f) of that directive precludes Member States from excluding, categorically and in general, the possibility of processing certain categories of personal data without allowing the opposing rights and interests at issue to be balanced against each other in a particular case. Thus, Member States cannot definitively prescribe, for certain categories of personal data, the result of the balancing of the opposing rights and interests, without allowing a different result by virtue of the particular circumstances of an individual case (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 November 2011, ASNEF and FECEMD, C‑468/10 and C‑469/10, EU:C:2011:777, paragraphs 47 and 48).
Original document at the source eur-lex.europa.eu