Patrick BREYER v. BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND, (“BREYER”)
Judgment
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
Full text 2 paragraphs
## Court Summary Necessity: The applicant cannot be deemed to have proved the necessity of having the personal data at issue transferred where the only justification provided was to supplement his written defense before the Greek Examining Magistrate. Applicant did not provide any information or justification as to how the submission of the requested documents containing that data would affect the Greek proceedings, the risks to which he would be exposed in procedural terms, and the merits of his defense if the documents were not submitted to the Greek Magistrate. (¶¶ 69-70) ## Excerpt 69 In his initial letter requesting access to the documents, dated 21 May 2013, the applicant stated that he wished immediate access to the documents, by 29 May 2013 at the latest, having regard to the allegations made against him by OLAF and Cedefop in the proceedings before the Greek courts and in order to supplement his written defence before the Greek Examining Magistrate, and that he was not at that time in a position to prepare his defence with regard to the abovementioned allegations.
In his confirmatory request of 26 June 2013, the applicant challenged the assessments made by Cedefop in the initial decision and repeated his request for access, stating in particular that, when Cedefop acted as an authority, it was under an obligation to guarantee his right to a fair trial. 70 Having regard to the above, the applicant cannot be deemed to have proved the necessity of having the personal data at issue transferred. It must be stated that, apart from referring to a purported obligation to prepare his written defence before the Greek Examining Magistrate before 29 May 2013, which indeed would have entailed Cedefop taking a decision within a period shorter than that of 15 working days provided for in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant did not provide Cedefop with any arguments or express justification to prove such a necessity (see, to that effect, judgment in Dennekamp v Parliament, cited in paragraph 41 above, EU:T:2011:688, paragraph 34).