La Quadrature du Net – Court Ruling (France, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA TAParis18 May 2020France
final
ePrivacy
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A French court ruled on the use of drones for public surveillance, stating it does not relate to cookie consent rules. This decision clarifies that drone surveillance has different legal considerations compared to online tracking. It matters because it helps define the boundaries of privacy laws in the context of new technologies.

What happened

The court addressed the legality of using drones for public surveillance without linking it to cookie consent requirements.

Who was affected

Individuals in public spaces who may be monitored by drones were indirectly affected by this ruling.

What the authority found

The court held that drone surveillance does not fall under the same regulations as cookie consent under privacy laws.

Why this matters

This ruling sets a precedent for how emerging technologies like drones are regulated, highlighting the need for clear guidelines on privacy in public surveillance.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

Art. 31 Loi Informatique et Libertés
Decision AuthorityConseil d'État
Reviewed AuthorityTA Paris (France)
Source verified 10 April 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
authority corrected
scope corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

In an appeal against the interim decision of the Administratif court of Paris, la Quadrature du Net and La Ligue des droits de l’homme seized the interim relief judge (référé liberté) to stop police forces to capture and process images of public using drones hovering over Paris streets in respect of sanitary measures justified by the exceptional circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic. What are the conditions for the use of drones capable of collecting personal data in public spaces for administrative police measures? == Appeal was formed against a first instance Administratif court that considered the drones did not collect personal data since the police guidelines did not authorise it. The CE, for its part, recalled the definition of personal data and relevant laws. The 27 April 2016 directive is applicable in that case, since it concerns « the rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security » (Article 1). Relying on the -wide - definition of personal data outlined in Article 3(1) of the directive, the CE considered that drones were, in fact, capable of collecting such type of data. Indeed, as they are equipped with zoom and can fly at close distance, they are apt to collect personally identifiable information. Moreover, such collection, transmission of video data to the police force and the video recording, constitute a processing of personal data as outlined in Article 3(2). Thus, the French Loi informatique et Libertés of the 6th January 1978 is applicable. == As processing of personal data by public bodies is at stake, article 31 of the French Loi informatique et Libertés of the 6th January 1978 is applicable. It « requires authorisation by order of the competent

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Details

Ruling Date

18 May 2020

Authority

DPA TAParis

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. La Quadrature du Net - France (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: