Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2017)
CJEU precedent (Directive 95/46/EC, pre-GDPR)
This is a Court of Justice judgment predating the GDPR. It interprets Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive). It is not a cookie or ePrivacy case and is excluded from cookie statistics and the Risk Calculator.
The Court of Justice ruled on whether police should disclose personal data after a tram accident in Latvia. The court decided that data can be shared if it serves a legitimate interest, like pursuing legal action. This decision clarifies when personal data can be shared for legal purposes.
What happened
The Latvian police refused to share a minor's full personal details after a tram accident.
Who was affected
The minor passenger involved in the tram accident and the tram company seeking the data.
What the authority found
The Court of Justice stated that personal data can be disclosed if it serves a legitimate interest, such as legal proceedings.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies that personal data can be shared for legitimate legal interests, helping companies understand when they can request such information.
GDPR Articles Cited
It all started with an accident between a tram and a taxi on the streets of Riga, the capital of Latvia. A minor passenger had suddenly opened the cab's door, which scraped the side of a tram. The taxi driver's insurer refused to pay out on the basis that the collision was the fault of the passenger. The tram company did not know who the passenger was, so it asked the Latvian police. The police disclosed the passenger's name but refused to disclose his identity card number or address because the national law did not include disclosure provisions for such data to third persons. The tram company challenged police refusal before the National Court, and the Court referred two questions to the CJEU. The main question referred to the CJEU was whether Article 7(f) of DPD imposes an obligation on a Data Controller to disclose all the personal data necessary to start court proceedings against a person. The National Supreme Court further questioned whether the answer to the latter would vary if that person were a minor or not. The CJEU laid down three cumulative conditions that make lawful the processing of personal data. When first applying the test, it was determined that the pursuit of a legitimate interest is not a question that should be answered only by the Data Controller. The same criterion should be answered by any party to whom the data are asked to be disclosed. Secondly, the CJEU continued with the need to process personal data for the purposes of legitimate interests; and ended with the balancing test that asserted that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the person concerned do not take precedence by the data protection. The judge in para 29 & 30 specified that (a) is a legitimate interest if the interest of an injured party, in obtaining the personal information of the person who caused the damage, is based on the intention to sue the latter person. It was also noticed that (b) the address and/or the identification number of that person appears strictly
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 Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde - European Union (2017). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: