Conseil d'Etat – Court Ruling (France, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA CE7 October 2025France
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.

The law of 2 March 2022 had introduced Article 61-3-1 of the Civil Code, which created a simplified procedure to change one’s surname in France. This reform led to an increase in name changes, which were only registered in civil status registers and not in administrative databases. In response, the French Ministry of the Interior adopted, on 19 December 2023, an Order creating an automated table called “table of correspondence of first and family name”. This table relied on eight categories of information: first name and family name before and after the change, the place and date of birth, the date of the change of name, the gender and, where applicable, the parental link (filiation). On 4 March 2024, the Ligue des droits de l'Homme (LDH) brought a case to the supreme administrative Court against the Minister of the Interior regarding its Order of 19 December 2023, with additional claims filed on 4 June 2024. Issues under the GDPR Firstly, the LDH contended that the processing revealed special categories of personal data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. Secondly, it submitted that Article 6(1)(e) GDPR was breached because no sufficiently defined public interest task justified the processing. Thirdly, LDH relied on Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, claiming that the scope of data collected, particularly sex and parental link (filiation), was not limited to what was necessary for the purposes put forward by the State. Fourthly, invoking Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, it maintained that there was a risk of uncontrolled dissemination of the data in view of the potentially large number of services and agents authorised to access the table. Fifthly, under Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, it argued that the principle of storage limitation was not respected, on the basis that the six-year retention period for the personal data was excessive while the three-year retention period for logging data was insufficient. Sixthly, LDH claimed a breach of Article 12 GDPR, asserting that data subjects were not

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 12 GDPR
Art. 21 GDPR
Art. 23 GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 9(1) GDPR

National Law Articles

Arrêté du 19 décembre 2023
Article 14 ECHR
Article 8 ECHR
Décret 2019-341
Décret 2023-971
Decision AuthorityCE
Full Legal Summary

The law of 2 March 2022 had introduced Article 61-3-1 of the Civil Code, which created a simplified procedure to change one’s surname in France. This reform led to an increase in name changes, which were only registered in civil status registers and not in administrative databases. In response, the French Ministry of the Interior adopted, on 19 December 2023, an Order creating an automated table called “table of correspondence of first and family name”. This table relied on eight categories of information: first name and family name before and after the change, the place and date of birth, the date of the change of name, the gender and, where applicable, the parental link (filiation). On 4 March 2024, the Ligue des droits de l'Homme (LDH) brought a case to the supreme administrative Court against the Minister of the Interior regarding its Order of 19 December 2023, with additional claims filed on 4 June 2024. Issues under the GDPR Firstly, the LDH contended that the processing revealed special categories of personal data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. Secondly, it submitted that Article 6(1)(e) GDPR was breached because no sufficiently defined public interest task justified the processing. Thirdly, LDH relied on Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, claiming that the scope of data collected, particularly sex and parental link (filiation), was not limited to what was necessary for the purposes put forward by the State. Fourthly, invoking Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, it maintained that there was a risk of uncontrolled dissemination of the data in view of the potentially large number of services and agents authorised to access the table. Fifthly, under Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, it argued that the principle of storage limitation was not respected, on the basis that the six-year retention period for the personal data was excessive while the three-year retention period for logging data was insufficient. Sixthly, LDH claimed a breach of Article 12 GDPR, asserting that data subjects were not

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Conseil d'Etat in FR

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

Details

Ruling Date

7 October 2025

Authority

DPA CE

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Conseil d'Etat - France (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: