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.
SCARLET EXTENDED SA V. SOCIETE BELGE DES AUTEURS, COMPOSITEURS ET EDITEURS SCRL (SABAM), 24.Nov.2011 (“SCARLET”)
Summary
Personal data: IP addresses are protected personal data because they allow the concerned users to be precisely identified. (¶ 51)
How it connects
Related across sources
Enforcement NAIH fines online store HUF 2M for unclear and incomplete privacy notice Enforcement Italian DPA sanctions Lusha Systems for processing contact data without consent in B2B Enforcement NAIH fines online store HUF 15M for transparency and Article 12(1) GDPR violations Enforcement Austrian DSB rules 360-degree feedback unlawful without specific works agreement Guidance Report on stakeholder event on anonymisation and pseudonymisation of 12 December 2025 Enforcement DSB Austria: No fine imposed on COVID mask shop for cookie consent failure
Full text
summary
Personal data: IP addresses are protected personal data because they allow the concerned users to be precisely identified. (¶ 51)
¶51 excerpt
It is common ground, first, that the injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system would involve a systematic analysis of all content and the collection and identification of users’ IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely identified.
Original document at the source eur-lex.europa.eu