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.
CJEU: Recording police officers on video in station falls within Data Protection Directive
Material scope: The recording of a video of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, are matters which come within the scope of that directive. (¶¶ 31-32, 46-47)
Original title: SERGEJS BUIVIDS v. THE AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA
Judgment
Full text
summary
Material scope: The recording of a video of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, are matters which come within the scope of that directive. (¶¶ 31-32, 46-47)
¶31 excerpt
According to the case-law of the Court, the image of a person recorded by a camera constitutes ‘personal data’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46 inasmuch as it makes it possible to identify the person concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 December 2014, Ryneš, C‑212/13, EU:C:2014:2428, paragraph 22).
¶32 excerpt
In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that it is possible to see and hear the police officers in the video in question, with the result that it must be held that those recorded images of persons constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46.
¶46 excerpt
Furthermore, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the fact that information is provided as part of a professional activity does not mean that it cannot be characterised as ‘personal data’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2015, ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA, C‑615/13 P, EU:C:2015:489, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
¶47 excerpt
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 3 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the recording of a video of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, are matters which come within the scope of that directive.
How it connects
Related across sources
Guidelines 3/2019 processing of personal data through video devices Guidelines ·EDPB Jan 30, 2020 Personal Data Processing Material scope (GDPR)
Opinion 5/2019 interplay between the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, in particular regarding the competence, tasks and powers of data protection authorities Opinion ·EDPB Mar 12, 2019 Telecommunications Material scope (GDPR) Supervision
2026 Contribution of the EDPB to the European Commission’s evaluation of the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive (‘‘LED’’) under Article 62 LED EDPB, Contribution of the EDPB to the European Commission’s evaluation of the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive (‘‘LED’’) under Article 62 LED Jan 19, 2026 Supervision Material scope (GDPR) Access Controls
Guidelines 09/2020 relevant and reasoned objection under Regulation 2016/679 Guidelines ·EDPB Mar 9, 2021 Supervision Supervisory Authorities Prior Consultation
Guidelines 01/2022 data subject rights - Right of access Guidelines ·EDPB Apr 17, 2023 Right of Access Personal Data Right to Rectification
Opinion 2/2026 EDPB-EDPS Joint opinion 2/2026 on the Proposal for a Regulation as regards the simplification of the digital legislative framework ( EDPB, EDPB-EDPS Joint opinion 2/2026 on the Proposal for a Regulation as regards the simplification of the digital legislative framework (Digital Omnibus) Opinion Feb 11, 2026 Notified Body Reporting and Notification Obligations Notification Obligation Data Breaches