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