OT – CJEU Judgment (Lithuania, 2022)
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 examined whether Lithuanian law requiring public officers to disclose personal data online was legal. The court found that while the law aimed to prevent corruption, it must also respect privacy rights. This case shows the balance between public interest and privacy protection.
What happened
The CJEU assessed whether Lithuanian law mandating public officers to disclose personal data online complied with EU privacy laws.
Who was affected
Public officers in Lithuania required to disclose personal and partner information under national law.
What the authority found
The Court held that mandatory data disclosure must balance public interest with privacy rights and comply with EU privacy standards.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that even laws aimed at public interest, like preventing corruption, must respect individual privacy rights. Public institutions should ensure their data practices align with EU privacy laws.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The Chief Ethics Commission was a Lithuanian body checking declarations of private interests by public officers. According to Lithuanian law, public officers were asked to provide a large amount of information about themselves and their partner, including name, personal identification number, social security number, employment status, membership or undertakings with trade unions and/or political parties and details about transactions over €3,000 concluded in the last 12 months. The Chief Official Ethics Commission then published information on its website (after removing sensitive data). Notably, the published information, whilst removing what was obviously special categories of personal data, would still include the name of their spouse, cohabitant, or partner. The data subject was a public officer who asked the annulment of a decision by the Chief Ethics Commission according to which they failed to disclose mandatory information. The data subject claimed that this mandatory declaration violated their data protection rights under EU law. The Lithuanian court sent a preliminary reference to the CJEU to clarify whether Lithuanian law establishing the obligation violated Articles 6(1)(c) and (e), 6(3) and 9(1) GDPR. The preliminary questions concern the issue whether the existence of a legal obligation – Article 6(1)(c) GDPR – or a public interest – Article 6(1)(e) GDPR – can authorise a mandatory disclosure of personal data of a public officer for online publication. According to the CJEU, such mandatory declaration of private interests was a limitation of the data subject right to privacy and data protection; therefore, it shall be compliant with Article 52(1) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The CJEU noticed that the mandatory declaration was based on Lithuanian law and pursued a public interest, namely the prevention of conflicts of interest and corruption. However, the measure shall also be proportionate. The Court found the declaration appropriat
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 OT in LT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Judgment Date
1 August 2022
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-5190About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. OT - Lithuania (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: