CJEU case C-162/22 Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2023)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union7 September 2023European Union
final
ePrivacy
CJEU Judgment

The Court of Justice ruled that a Lithuanian public prosecutor was dismissed after being found guilty of misconduct. This decision is important because it confirms that authorities can legally intercept and record communications when investigating serious misconduct. It shows that there are strict rules about how and when data can be accessed in such cases.

What happened

A Lithuanian public prosecutor was dismissed after a court authorized the interception and recording of data during an investigation into misconduct.

Who was affected

The public prosecutor involved in the investigation was affected by this decision.

What the authority found

The Court held that the investigation and data interception were lawful under the relevant legal framework.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the importance of lawful data access in misconduct investigations. It sets a precedent for how authorities can handle sensitive data in similar cases.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityCJEU
Source verified 12 April 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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) Directive 2002/58], together with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/58/oj/eng Article 3] 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://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf Articles 7 and 8 EU Charter of Fundamental Rig

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

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. CJEU case C-162/22 Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra - European Union (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: