Enforcing jurisdiction
European Union · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
No confirmed legal basis recorded.

Smaranda Bara and Others – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2015)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union1 October 2015European Union
final
CJEU Judgment

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.

Romanian law required public authorities to share data to determine individuals' insurance status, but they failed to inform those individuals. The court ruled that the law must ensure fair processing of personal data. This case underscores the need for transparency when handling personal information by public authorities.

What happened

Public authorities transmitted personal data without informing the individuals involved, violating privacy rules.

Who was affected

Self-employed individuals whose personal data was shared without their knowledge.

What the authority found

The Court held that the authorities must inform individuals about the processing of their personal data.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the need for transparency and communication when public authorities handle personal data, reminding organizations to keep individuals informed.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 13(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 14(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 23(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 23(1)(h) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 13(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 14(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 23(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 23(1)(h) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 322 (1) Romanian Law No. 95/2006 on Healthcare Reform
Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityCourt of Appeals in Cluj

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

Article 315 (currently 322) of Romanian Law No 95/2006 mandated that all public authorities must transmit any data necessary to determine the insurance status of individuals to the National Health Insurance Fund (CNAS). The law also recognised persons without a taxable income qualify as insured. The National Tax Administration Agency (ANAF) transmitted data related to several self-employed persons, the applicants, including their income, based on a common 2007 Protocol, not subject to official publication. Neither authority informed the data subjects of this transmission. In this preliminary ruling, the Court clarified, first, that Article 124 TFEU (prohibiting privileged access by public authorities to financial institutions) is exclusively related to the Union’s economic and monetary policy, irrelevant to the proceedings and thus rejected as inadmissible. Second, since the fourth question concerned the lawfulness of data processing in a specific context, it benefited from a presumption of relevance to the dispute at hand. As a result, it was deemed admissible. Then the Court held that the Directive 95/46 was applicable. First, because the data transferred (names, categories of income, taxes paid) constitutes personal data. Second, both the transfer of data from ANAF to CNAS and the subsequent processing performed by CNAS constitute data processing. Therefore, the rules set out in Articles 10 and 11 (information that must be communicated to the data subject) are also applicable to the processing in dispute, in the limits set in Article 13. With regards to substance, the Court stated, first, that Article 10 sets out what information must be provided to the data subjects if their data was collected directly from them. This includes providing the identity of the “recipients of data” (Article 10(c)) in order to ensure fair processing. Thus, the Court and the Advocate General agreed that the principle of fair processing “requires a public administrative body to inform

Outcome

CJEU Case

A judgment or Advocate General opinion in a case before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Smaranda Bara and Others in EU

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

Details

Judgment Date

1 October 2015

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Smaranda Bara and Others - European Union (2015). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: