CLIENT EARTH ET AL. V. EFSA, 16.7.2015 (“CLIENT EARTH”)
Personal data: The information as to which expert is the author of each comment made by the external experts constitutes personal data even where the information is provided as part of a professional activity. Personal data is not the same as private data and, therefore, claiming (i) information does not fall within the scope of private life; or (ii) information has been publish on the internet is irrelevant. The characterization of information as personal data does not depend on whether the per
How it connects
References
- SERGEJS BUIVIDS v. THE AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA
- Art. 2
- CLIENT EARTH ET AL. V. EFSA, 16.7.2015 (“CLIENT EARTH”)
- Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
- Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
- TIETOSUOJAVALTUUTETTU [FINNISH DATA PROTECTION OMBUDSMAN] V. SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPORSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY, 16.12.2008 (“SATAKUNNAN&SATAMEDIA”)
- Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2017.#Peter Puškár v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky and Kriminálny úrad finančnej správy.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 47 — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 1, 7 and 13 — Processing of personal data — Article 4(3) TEU — Drawing up of a list of personal data — Subject matter — Ta
- Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (Extracts).#Athanassios Oikonomopoulos v European Commission.#Non-contractual liability — Damage caused by the Commission in the context of an OLAF investigation and by OLAF — Actions for damages — Action for a declaration that certain measures taken by OLAF were void and inadmissible for evidentiary purposes before the national authorities — Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Processing of personal data — Rights of the defence.#Case
Related across sources
Full text 5 paragraphs
In so far as that information would make it possible to connect to one particular expert or another a particular comment, it concerns identified natural persons and, accordingly, constitutes a set of personal data, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation No 45/2001.
As the General Court correctly held, in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment under appeal, the fact that information is provided as part of a professional activity does not mean that it cannot be characterised as a set of personal data (see, to that effect, the judgments in Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, C‑465/00, C‑138/01 and C‑139/01, EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 64; Commission v Bavarian Lager, C‑28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraphs 66 to 70; and Worten, C‑342/12, EU:C:2013:355, paragraphs 19 and 22).
Likewise, the fact that both the identity of the experts concerned and the comments submitted on the draft guidance document were made public on the EFSA website does not mean that the information at issue could no longer be so characterised (see, to that effect, the judgment in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, C‑73/07, EU:C:2008:727, paragraph 49).
Further, as contended by EFSA, the Commission and EDPS, the concepts of ‘personal data’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, and of ‘data relating to private life’ are not to be confused. Consequently, the claim made by ClientEarth and PAN Europe in this case that the information at issue does not fall within the scope of the private life of the experts concerned is ineffective.
Last, since the question of whether the person concerned objects to the disclosure of the information at issue is not a constituent part of the concept of ‘personal data’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, the General Court was correct to hold, in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, that the characterisation of an item of information relating to a person as being personal data does not depend on whether there is such an objection.