EU Commission – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2010)
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 found that Germany's federal states improperly influenced their data privacy authorities. This ruling emphasizes that these authorities must be free from government control to protect people's privacy rights effectively. It sets an important standard for the independence of privacy regulators.
What happened
Germany's federal states were found to improperly influence the decisions of data privacy authorities.
Who was affected
The decision impacts the supervisory authorities tasked with overseeing data processing by public bodies in Germany.
What the authority found
The court ruled that Germany breached the requirement for data privacy authorities to act with complete independence, as outlined in the Directive 95/46/EC.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the critical need for independent data privacy authorities, ensuring they are free from governmental influence. It sets a precedent for maintaining the autonomy of privacy regulators across Europe.
The European Commission alleged that the Federal State of Germany was in violation of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31995L0046 Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC] (this provision is now replaced by the GDPR, specifically Article 52 GDPR) for subjecting the supervisory authorities that monitored data processing carried out by public bodies to federal states’ scrutiny. Therefore, a distinction was made between data processed by public bodies and data processed by non-public bodies. The State of Germany allowed for the government of the respective federal states to influence and even cancel and replace decisions of the supervisory authorities. The second sentence of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31995L0046 Article 28(1) of the Directive] stated: "These authorities shall act with complete independence in exercising the functions entrusted to them". The Commission The Commission relied on a broad interpretation of the words “with complete independence” meaning that a supervisory authority must be free from any influence therefore including state scrutiny. Germany The State of Germany highlighted that in light of the principle of democracy, independence should be interpreted narrowly. The state of Germany put forward a narrower interpretation of the words “with complete independence” to mean that supervisory authorities must have function independence meaning that those authorities must be independent from bodies outside of the public sector which are under their supervision. Germany interpreted the state scrutiny as the the administration’s internal monitoring mechanism implemented by the authorities attached to the same administrative machinery which were also bound by the GDPR. Further, it claimed that certain principles of EC law and the principle of democracy opposed the interpretation of the Commission. The principles of EC law related to the retention of implemented national systems. The CJEU ana
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 EU Commission in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. EU Commission - European Union (2010). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: