CURIA - Documents
33 of 58
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?docid=2320...
sector.
92
Article 1(3) of that directive excludes from its scope ‘activities of the State’ in specified fields,
including activities of the State in areas of criminal law and in the areas of public security, defence
and State security, including the economic well-being of the State when the activities relate to State
security matters. The activities thus mentioned by way of example are, in any event, activities of the
State or of State authorities and are unrelated to fields in which individuals are active (judgment of
2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraph 32 and the case-law
cited).
93
In addition, Article 3 of Directive 2002/58 states that that directive is to apply to the processing of
personal data in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications
services in public communications networks in the European Union, including public
communications networks supporting data collection and identification devices (‘electronic
communications services’). Consequently, that directive must be regarded as regulating the
activities of the providers of such services (judgment of 2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal,
C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
94
In that context, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 states that Member States may adopt, subject to
the conditions laid down, ‘legislative measures to restrict the scope of the rights and obligations
provided for in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of [that directive]’
(judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970, paragraph 71).
95
Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 necessarily presupposes that the national legislative measures
referred to therein fall within the scope of that directive, since it expressly authorises the Member
States to adopt them only if the conditions laid down in the directive are met. Further, such
measures regulate, for the purposes mentioned in that provision, the activity of providers of
electronic communications services (judgment of 2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C‑207/16,
EU:C:2018:788, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
96
It is in the light of, inter alia, those considerations that the Court has held that Article 15(1) of
Directive 2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 3 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that
the scope of that directive extends not only to a legislative measure that requires providers of
electronic communications services to retain traffic and location data, but also to a legislative
measure requiring them to grant the competent national authorities access to that data. Such
legislative measures necessarily involve the processing, by those providers, of the data and cannot,
to the extent that they regulate the activities of those providers, be regarded as activities
characteristic of States, referred to in Article 1(3) of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of
2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraphs 35 and 37 and the caselaw cited).
97
In addition, having regard to the considerations set out in paragraph 95 above and the general
scheme of Directive 2002/58, an interpretation of that directive under which the legislative
measures referred to in Article 15(1) thereof were excluded from the scope of that directive because
the objectives which such measures must pursue overlap substantially with the objectives pursued
by the activities referred to in Article 1(3) of that same directive would deprive Article 15(1)
thereof of any practical effect (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15
and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970, paragraphs 72 and 73).
98
The concept of ‘activities’ referred to in Article 1(3) of Directive 2002/58 cannot therefore, as was
noted, in essence, by the Advocate General in point 75 of his Opinion in Joined Cases La
Quadrature du Net and Others (C‑511/18 and C‑512/18, EU:C:2020:6), be interpreted as covering
the legislative measures referred to in Article 15(1) of that directive.
99
Article 4(2) TEU, to which the governments listed in paragraph 89 of the present judgment have
made reference, cannot invalidate that conclusion. Indeed, according to the Court’s settled case-law,
2/15/2021, 4:58 PM