Case Law · CJEU DE 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.

CJEU: Staff union emails in personal file lawful as data manifestly made public by sender

Lawful basis for processing: Inclusion of a letter concerning an staff member’s use of internal e-mail to transmit union information in his personal file is specially restricted data but its processing does not infringe data protection law as it concerns data which the person himself has manifestly made public. (¶ 57)

Original title: ESCH-LEONHARDT AND OTHERS V EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

Judgment

Legal ground
Legitimate Interest Lawful Basis Criminal Data Processing IP Address
Feb 18, 2004 Source curia.europa.eu

Full text 3 paragraphs

Paragraphs carrying a topic or an applied provision show those connections inline
§

## Court Summary Lawful basis for processing: Inclusion of a letter concerning an staff member’s use of internal e-mail to transmit union information in his personal file is specially restricted data but its processing does not infringe data protection law as it concerns data which the person himself has manifestly made public. (¶ 57) ## Excerpt 57 Selbst wenn dieses Offenlegen der Beteiligung der Kläger an gewerkschaftlichen Betätigungen als Hinweis auf ihre Gewerkschaftszugehörigkeit anzusehen sein sollte, ist festzustellen, dass nach Artikel 10 Absatz

Legitimate Interest Processing
¶2

Buchstabe d der Verordnung das in Artikel 10 Absatz 1 enthaltene Verarbeitungsverbot keine Anwendung findet, wenn die Verarbeitung sich auf Daten bezieht, die die betroffene Person offenkundig öffentlich gemacht hat. Wie die EZB zu Recht vorgetragen hat, haben die Kläger von sich aus innerhalb der EZB ihre Gewerkschaftszugehörigkeit öffentlich gemacht, indem sie die E-Mails vom 28 November und vom

¶4

Dezember 2001 im Namen der IPSO unterzeichnet haben. In den streitigen Schreiben wurde diese von den Klägern selbst verbreitete Information lediglich wiederholt.

How it connects

1 of 3 paragraphs apply legislation or carry a topic — see them in the full text ↓

Related across sources

Guidelines 3/2019 processing of personal data through video devices Jan 30, 2020 Personal Data Processing Material scope (GDPR)
Guidelines 2/2018 derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/679 Guidelines on derogations of Article 49 May 25, 2018 Privacy Shield Lawful Basis Legitimate Interest
Guidelines 02/2024 Article 48 GDPR Article 48 GDPR provides that: ' Any judgment of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to… Jun 5, 2025 Controllers Privacy Shield International Transfer
Guidelines 5/2019 criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1) Jul 7, 2020 Right to be Forgotten Personal Data Right to Rectification
Guidelines 4/2019 Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default Version 2.0 Adopted on 20 October 2020 Guidelines on data protection by design and by default Oct 20, 2020 Privacy by Design & Default Privacy by Default Privacy by Design
Guidelines 8/2020 targeting of social media users Apr 13, 2021 Marketing IP Address Transparency
Related documents