Latvijas Republikas Saeima – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2026)
CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action
This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a case involving minority shareholders in Latvia who challenged the public disclosure of their personal information. This ruling is important because it addresses the balance between transparency and privacy for individuals in corporate settings.
What happened
The Court ruled on whether national laws requiring public access to shareholder information violated privacy rights under GDPR.
Who was affected
Minority shareholders of a public company in Latvia were affected by the disclosure of their personal information.
What the authority found
The Court held that national legislation allowing unrestricted public access to personal data must be evaluated against GDPR's privacy protections.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for how personal information of shareholders is treated under GDPR. Companies should be cautious about how they disclose personal data to ensure compliance with privacy laws.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
Seventeen natural persons, who were minority shareholders of a public limited liability company, brought proceedings before the Satversmes tiesa (the Constitutional Court of Latvia). They challenged national legislation requiring information on shareholders to be included in the public companies register. The information made publicly available included shareholders’ identity and contact details, as well as information concerning the class, number and nominal value of their shares and the number of votes attached to them. The information could be accessed online and downloaded in bulk by any person without identification or the need to demonstrate a legitimate interest. The data subjects argued that such disclosure constituted an unjustified and disproportionate interference with their rights, particularly because they were neither beneficial owners nor members of the company’s management bodies and did not exercise control over the company. The national legislation pursued several objectives, including ensuring transparency and protecting third parties, combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and facilitating the implementation of sanctions. The Constitutional Court stated the proceedings and referred questions to the CJEU. In particular, whether [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/1132/oj/eng Directive 2017/1132] required such disclosure and whether Articles 5 and 6 GDPR permitted national legislation providing unrestricted public access to that personal data. Directive 2017/1132 The Court first held that [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/1132/oj/eng Article 14(d) Directive 2017/1132] does not require the disclosure of information relating to all shareholders, including minority shareholders. Shareholders do not, merely by holding shares, participate in the administration, supervision or control of a company within the meaning of that provision. In particular, minority shareholders are generally not authorised to represent or bind the compa
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 Latvijas Republikas Saeima in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Judgment Date
3 September 2026
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-10253About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Latvijas Republikas Saeima - European Union (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: