Court case 12009-25 – Court Ruling (Sweden, 2026)

Court Ruling
Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten19 March 2026Sweden
final
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 data subject filed a complaint with the DPA concerning the processing of personal data in a research project linked to an American researcher, the American association Prostitution Research and Education (PRE), and a Swedish association (the controller). The DPA opened supervision against the controller. It intended to assess compliance with the GDPR provisions on the basic principles, legal basis, special category data, criminal offence data and transparency obligations. The DPA later closed the case. It considered that the Swedish association was not the controller for the processing of the complainant’s personal data. In particular, the DPA relied on the ethical review application, where the association was not identified as responsible for the research project. The DPA considered that it's involvement, including participant selection, provision of premises, storage facilities and an email address, indicated processor status rather than controller status. The complainant appealed. They argued that the Swedish association had exercised influence over both the purposes and means of the processing, had its own interest in the research project, and could not avoid responsibility merely because PRE or another actor may also have been a controller. The Court upheld the appeal. First, the court held that the Swedish association was a joint controller. It recalled that controller status must be assessed objectively and interpreted broadly. What matters is whether an entity, for its own purposes, actually exercised influence over the purposes and means of the processing. A formal designation in project documents is not decisive. The court found that the Swedish association had a significant role in the project. It had initially identified itself as controller, was listed as a co-founder, had a representative involved in data collection, processing, analysis and report writing, had published research based on the project data, had used the project to pursue its own kno

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

View original scraped data
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 26(GDPR)
Art. 57(1)(f) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityFiS
Reviewed AuthorityIMY (Sweden)
Source verified 6 May 2026
articles corrected
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary

A data subject filed a complaint with the DPA concerning the processing of personal data in a research project linked to an American researcher, the American association Prostitution Research and Education (PRE), and a Swedish association (the controller). The DPA opened supervision against the controller. It intended to assess compliance with the GDPR provisions on the basic principles, legal basis, special category data, criminal offence data and transparency obligations. The DPA later closed the case. It considered that the Swedish association was not the controller for the processing of the complainant’s personal data. In particular, the DPA relied on the ethical review application, where the association was not identified as responsible for the research project. The DPA considered that it's involvement, including participant selection, provision of premises, storage facilities and an email address, indicated processor status rather than controller status. The complainant appealed. They argued that the Swedish association had exercised influence over both the purposes and means of the processing, had its own interest in the research project, and could not avoid responsibility merely because PRE or another actor may also have been a controller. The Court upheld the appeal. First, the court held that the Swedish association was a joint controller. It recalled that controller status must be assessed objectively and interpreted broadly. What matters is whether an entity, for its own purposes, actually exercised influence over the purposes and means of the processing. A formal designation in project documents is not decisive. The court found that the Swedish association had a significant role in the project. It had initially identified itself as controller, was listed as a co-founder, had a representative involved in data collection, processing, analysis and report writing, had published research based on the project data, had used the project to pursue its own kno

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 12009-25 in SE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

19 March 2026

Authority

Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 12009-25 - Sweden (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: