CJEU case C-162/22 Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2023)
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a case involving a Lithuanian public prosecutor who challenged the legality of data interception during a misconduct investigation. The court confirmed that such data access can be justified under specific circumstances. This ruling clarifies the balance between privacy rights and the need for law enforcement to access data.
What happened
The court upheld the legality of intercepting data related to a public prosecutor's misconduct investigation.
Who was affected
The public prosecutor involved in the misconduct investigation was affected by this ruling.
What the authority found
The Court held that accessing data for criminal investigations can be lawful under certain conditions specified in the ePrivacy Directive.
Why this matters
This case sets a precedent for how law enforcement can access personal data while balancing privacy rights. It highlights the need for clear legal frameworks in data access for investigations.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
The Lithuanian Prosecutor General´s Office investigated one of its public prosecutors, who was found responsible of misconduct in its office. The research into the public prosecutor´s misconduct was authorised by a court order, allowing for the interception and recording of data transmitted over electronic communication. Following these findings, the Prosecutor General´s Office dismissed the public prosecutor from office. The public prosecutor contested the decision before the [https://administracinis.teismas.lt/ Regional Administrative Court (Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teisma)], which dismissed the claim due to the lawfulness of the criminal intelligence operations and process behind the data gathered. The controller then appealed the case to the [https://www.lvat.lt/ Supreme Administrative Court (Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teisma)], as he alleged that the access by intelligence bodies to traffic data and actual content of electronic communications was such a serious interference with fundamental rights that access could only be granted to combat serious crime. The Supreme Administrative Court considered it apparent that [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/58/oj/eng Article 15(1) ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC], together with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/58/oj/eng Article 3]ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC thereof, extends the scope of that directive only to legislative measures requiring providers of electronic communications services to grant the competent national authorities access to data (as found in C-623/17 Privacy International). Moreover, it follows from [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=238381&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=22564108 C-746/18 Prokuratuur], that only actions to combat serious crime and measures to prevent serious threats to public security are capable of justifying serious interference with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj Article 7
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for CJEU case C-162/22 Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Judgment Date
7 September 2023
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-8747About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. CJEU case C-162/22 Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra - European Union (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: