CJEU case C‑21/23 Lindenapotheke – CJEU Judgment (Germany, 2024)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union4 October 2024Germany
final
CJEU Judgment

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 reference originates from a civil dispute between two competing pharmacists (the controller and DR) brought before a German regional court (Landgericht Dessau-Roßlau – LG Dessau-Roßlau). The controller sold non-prescription but pharmacy-only medicine through Amazon requiring customers to enter their name, delivery address and the information necessary for the individualization of the medicines. On the basis of the German legislation on unfair commercial practices, DR sought an injunction prohibiting the controller from selling pharmacy-only but non-prescription medication through Amazon unless customers could express their consent to the data processing in advance. DR alleged that the sale through Amazon was unlawful under the GDPR as it did not ask for the prior consent of the customer’s as required under Article 9(2) GDPR for the processing of sensitive data. The Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Naumburg – OLG Naumburg) held that the marketing of pharmacy-only medication is contrary to paragraph 3 of a national law on unfair competition ([https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/uwg_2004/__3.html §3 Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG)]). Also, without explicit consent from the customers, the processing is prohibited under the GDPR since it entails the processing of special categories of personal data. The controller then appealed the case to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) which referred to the CJEU the following preliminary questions: 1) Does the GDPR preclude national provisions which grant competitors the power to take action against the infringer for infringements of the GDPR by way of an action before the civil courts under the prohibition of unfair commercial practices? 2) Are the data of an online pharmacist’s customers in connection with online-orders for pharmacy-only (but not prescription-only) medicines health data within the meaning of Article 9(1) GDPR? 1. First question (Chapter VII

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 79 GDPR
Art. 80 GDPR
Art. 9(1) GDPR
Art. 9(2) GDPR
Art. 4(15) GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR

National Law Articles

§3 UWG
Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityBGH (Germany)
Full Legal Summary

The reference originates from a civil dispute between two competing pharmacists (the controller and DR) brought before a German regional court (Landgericht Dessau-Roßlau – LG Dessau-Roßlau). The controller sold non-prescription but pharmacy-only medicine through Amazon requiring customers to enter their name, delivery address and the information necessary for the individualization of the medicines. On the basis of the German legislation on unfair commercial practices, DR sought an injunction prohibiting the controller from selling pharmacy-only but non-prescription medication through Amazon unless customers could express their consent to the data processing in advance. DR alleged that the sale through Amazon was unlawful under the GDPR as it did not ask for the prior consent of the customer’s as required under Article 9(2) GDPR for the processing of sensitive data. The Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Naumburg – OLG Naumburg) held that the marketing of pharmacy-only medication is contrary to paragraph 3 of a national law on unfair competition ([https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/uwg_2004/__3.html §3 Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG)]). Also, without explicit consent from the customers, the processing is prohibited under the GDPR since it entails the processing of special categories of personal data. The controller then appealed the case to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) which referred to the CJEU the following preliminary questions: 1) Does the GDPR preclude national provisions which grant competitors the power to take action against the infringer for infringements of the GDPR by way of an action before the civil courts under the prohibition of unfair commercial practices? 2) Are the data of an online pharmacist’s customers in connection with online-orders for pharmacy-only (but not prescription-only) medicines health data within the meaning of Article 9(1) GDPR? 1. First question (Chapter VII

Outcome

CJEU Judgment

A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.

Violations (1)

Cookies Placed Before Consent
critical

Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.

Art. 6(1) GDPR

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for CJEU case C‑21/23 Lindenapotheke in DE

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

Details

Judgment Date

4 October 2024

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. CJEU case C‑21/23 Lindenapotheke - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: