CJEU case C-486/12 X – CJEU Judgment (Netherlands, 2013)
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 of the European Union ruled on whether municipalities can charge fees for providing personal data. A woman challenged a fee for accessing her own address records, arguing it should be free. The court clarified that fees are allowed as long as they are not excessive.
What happened
A woman contested a fee charged by her municipality for accessing her personal address data.
Who was affected
Individuals requesting access to their personal data from public authorities.
What the authority found
The court decided that charging a fee for accessing personal data is permissible if the fee is not excessive.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies that while public authorities can charge for data access, the fees must be reasonable. Small businesses should ensure any fees for data access comply with this standard to avoid disputes.
In proceedings contesting a decision imposing a fine for a traffic offence, the plaintiff sought to show that she had never received any order of the fine or any subsequent demands for payment that had been issued by the public prosecutor, as they had been sent to the wrong address. To prove this, she requested her municipality to disclose her various addresses in 2008 and 2009. In response, the municipality provided a certified transcript of the personal data in question and, in exchange, demanded payment of a fee of EUR 12,80. The plaintiff brought an action contesting that request for payment. The referring court was of the view that Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 can be construed in two ways: - the communication of personal data must take place without excessive delay or excessive expense; or - the communication of personal data must take place without excessive delay and without expense. In the former case, it is permissible to levy a fee, so long as it is not excessive. In the latter case, levying a fee is prohibited. The referring court therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: - Whether Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 is to be interpreted as precluding the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority; - Whether the levying of the present fee is excessive. If it was found that Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that personal data is to be communicated free of charge, the referring court was then uncertain as to: - Whether the provision of access to data against payment pursuant to a provision under national law constitute compliance with the obligation to communicate data undergoing processing. Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 does not require Member States to levy fees when the right of access to personal data is exercised, nor does it prohibit the levying of such fees as long as they are not exces
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-486/12 X in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-4347About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. CJEU case C-486/12 X - Netherlands (2013). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: