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.
VOLKER UND MARKUS SCHECKE GBR V. LAND HESSEN, EIFERT V. LAND HESSEN AND BUNDESANSTALT FUR LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND ERNAHRUNG, 9.Nov.2010 (“SCHECKE”)
Summary
Interference with the fundamental rights of privacy and data protection: Chapter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) Article 52(1) accepts that limitations may be imposed on fundamental rights, as long as they are provided by law, respect the essence of those rights and are proportionate (necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.) The CJEU concluded that by imposing an obligation to publish personal data rel
How it connects
Related across sources
Guidance Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) Guidance Guidelines 03/2021 on the application of Article 65(1)(a) GDPR Guidance Guidelines 5/2019 on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1) Guidance Guidelines 05/2022 on the use of facial recognition technology in the area of law enforcement News Artificial intelligence: the action plan of the CNIL Guidance Guidelines 03/2022 on Deceptive design patterns in social media platform interfaces: how to recognise and avoid them
Full text
summary
Interference with the fundamental rights of privacy and data protection: Chapter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) Article 52(1) accepts that limitations may be imposed on fundamental rights, as long as they are provided by law, respect the essence of those rights and are proportionate (necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.) The CJEU concluded that by imposing an obligation to publish personal data relating to each natural person who was a beneficiary of aid from certain agricultural funds without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria, such as the periods during which those persons received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof, the Council and the Commission had exceeded the limits imposed by the principle of proportionality. In this case, the interference is not proportionate as “there is nothing to show that lawmakers made an effort to strike a balance” with respect to the data of natural persons.
¶76 excerpt
As to whether the measure is necessary, it must be recalled that the objective of the publication at issue may not be pursued without having regard to the fact that that objective must be reconciled with the fundamental rights set forth in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter (see, to that effect, Case C‑73/07 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia [2008] ECR I‑9831, paragraph 53).
¶77 excerpt
It is thus necessary to determine whether the Council of the European Union and the Commission balanced the European Union’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its acts and ensuring the best use of public funds against the interference with the right of the beneficiaries concerned to respect for their private life in general and to the protection of their personal data in particular. The Court has held in this respect that derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, paragraph 56).
Original document at the source eur-lex.europa.eu