# DENNEKAMP V. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 23.11.2011 (“DENNEKAMPI”)

- Type: Case Law
- Source: CJEU
- Date: 2011-11-23
- Original: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62010TJ0190&ref=6176
- Canonical: https://overview.legal/posts/6176
- Topics: Criminal Data, Special Categories of Data, Types of Special Categories of Personal Data, Political Opinions, Legitimate Interest, Lawful Basis, Right of Access, Pseudonymization, Profiling, Law Enforcement

## Summary

Lawful basis: The argument that release of names of former MEP assistants would reveal their political opinions and therefore constitute sensitive data was not substantiated and cannot make up for the fact that the contested decision failed to show why disclosure would specifically and effectively undermine their right to privacy within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 45/2001. (¶101)

## Full text

## Court Summary

Lawful basis: The argument that release of names of former MEP assistants would reveal their political opinions and therefore constitute sensitive data was not substantiated and cannot make up for the fact that the contested decision failed to show why disclosure would specifically and effectively undermine their right to privacy within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 45/2001. (¶101)

## Excerpt

101    Furthermore, in response to the applicants’ argument that data concerning former MEP assistants were previously accessible, the Parliament argued, in its defence, that it cannot release such data, as they would reveal the assistants’ political opinions and would therefore be sensitive data within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 45/2001 (see paragraph 84). However, that argument, which, moreover, is not in any way substantiated, cannot, in any event, make up for the fact that the contested decision failed to show why disclosure of those data would specifically and effectively undermine their right to privacy within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the case of a request for access to documents, where the institution in question refuses such access, it must demonstrate in each individual case, on the basis of the information at its disposal, that the documents to which access is sought do indeed fall within the exceptions listed in Regulation No 1049/2001 (Joined Cases T‑110/03, T‑150/03 and T‑405/03 Sison v Council [2005] ECR II‑1429, paragraph 60) and not put forward arguments justifying that refusal at the stage of the statement in defence. Therefore, that argument cannot be upheld either.

## Cited law provisions (2)

### GDPR — gdpr-art-4-par-1-en

‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

### GDPR — gdpr-art-10-en

Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures based on Article 6(1) shall be carried out only under the control of official authority or when the processing is authorised by Union or Member State law providing for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Any comprehensive register of criminal convictions shall be kept only under the control of official authority.

---
Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/posts/6176 · 2026-08-22