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”)

C-582/14 Case
CJEU
Necessity
AG Opinion
Personal Data Consent International Transfer Law Enforcement
Oct 19, 2016 Source
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

How it connects

4 of 5 paragraphs apply legislation or carry a topic — see them in the full text ↓

References

Related across sources

Enforcement HDPA (Greece) examines deletion request from National Registry of Undesirable Aliens HDPA (Greece) Guidance EDPB Work Programme 2026-2027 EDPB Literature If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it? Ten improvements for the upcoming tenth anniversary of the General Data Protection Regulation Computer law & security review Guidance Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) EDPB Guidance Opinion 27/2025 regarding the European Commission Draft Implementing Decision pursuant to Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom EDPB Guidance Guidelines 02/2024 on Article 48 GDPR EDPB

Full text 5 paragraphs

Paragraphs carrying a topic or an applied provision show those connections inline Original at the source →
¶69

In his initial letter requesting access to the documents, dated

¶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

Personal Data
¶21

However, the court of appeal held that Mr Breyer’s action could not be upheld in other situations. If Mr Breyer does not reveal his identity during a consultation period, only the internet service provider could connect the IP address to an identified subscriber. However, in the hands of the Federal Republic of Germany, in its capacity as provider of online media services, the IP address is not personal data, even in combination with the date of the consultation period to which it relates, because the user of the websites concerned is not identifiable by that Member State.

Identification Personal Data IP Address
¶26

If the dynamic IP addresses of Mr Breyer’s computer, together with the date of the relevant consultation period, were to be considered as constituting personal data, the referring court asks whether the storage of those IP addresses at the end of that consultation period is authorised by Article 7(f) of that directive.

Personal Data applies Art. 7
¶29

The referring court asks whether that interpretation, which is the interpretation advocated by the court of appeal, is in accordance with Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46, having regard, in particular with the criteria laid down by the Court in paragraph 29 et seq. of the judgment of 24 November 2011, ASNEF and FECEMD ( C‑468/10 and C‑469/10 , EU:C:2011:777 ).

applies Art. 7
Original document at the source eur-lex.europa.eu

Similar Content