CURIA - Documents
36 of 58
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?docid=2320...
grounds.
111
That being said, the option to derogate from the rights and obligations laid down in Articles 5, 6
and 9 of Directive 2002/58 cannot permit the exception to the obligation of principle to ensure the
confidentiality of electronic communications and data relating thereto and, in particular, to the
prohibition on storage of that data, explicitly laid down in Article 5 of that directive, to become the
rule (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15,
EU:C:2016:970, paragraphs 89 and 104).
112
As regards the objectives that are capable of justifying a limitation of the rights and obligations laid
down, in particular, in Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58, the Court has previously held that
the list of objectives set out in the first sentence of Article 15(1) of that directive is exhaustive, as a
result of which a legislative measure adopted under that provision must correspond, genuinely and
strictly, to one of those objectives (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 October 2018, Ministerio
Fiscal, C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).
113
In addition, it is apparent from the third sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 that the
Member States are not permitted to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the rights and
obligations provided for in Articles 5, 6 and 9 of that directive unless they do so in accordance with
the general principles of EU law, including the principle of proportionality, and with the
fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In that regard, the Court has previously held that the
obligation imposed on providers of electronic communications services by a Member State by way
of national legislation to retain traffic data for the purpose of making them available, if necessary, to
the competent national authorities raises issues relating to compatibility not only with Articles 7 and
8 of the Charter, relating to the protection of privacy and to the protection of personal data,
respectively, but also with Article 11 of the Charter, relating to the freedom of expression (see, to
that effect, judgments of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights, C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, EU:C:2014:238,
paragraphs 25 and 70, and of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970,
paragraphs 91and 92 and the case-law cited).
114
Thus, the interpretation of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 must take account of the importance
both of the right to privacy, guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter, and of the right to protection of
personal data, guaranteed in Article 8 thereof, as derived from the case-law of the Court, as well as
the importance of the right to freedom of expression, given that that fundamental right, guaranteed
in Article 11 of the Charter, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a pluralist, democratic
society, and is one of the values on which, under Article 2 TEU, the Union is founded (see, to that
effect, judgments of 6 March 2001, Connolly v Commission, C‑274/99 P, EU:C:2001:127,
paragraph 39, and of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970,
paragraph 93 and the case-law cited).
115
It should be made clear, in that regard, that the retention of traffic and location data constitutes, in
itself, on the one hand, a derogation from the prohibition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive
2002/58 barring any person other than the users from storing that data, and, on the other, an
interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal
data, enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, irrespective of whether the information in
question relating to private life is sensitive or whether the persons concerned have been
inconvenienced in any way on account of that interference (see, to that effect, Opinion 1/15 (EUCanada PNR Agreement) of 26 July 2017, EU:C:2017:592, paragraphs 124 and 126 and the caselaw cited; see, by analogy, as regards Article 8 of the ECHR, ECtHR, 30 January 2020, Breyer v.
Germany, CE:ECHR:2020:0130JUD005000112, § 81).
116
Whether or not the retained data has been used subsequently is also irrelevant (see, by analogy, as
regards Article 8 of the ECHR, ECtHR, 16 February 2000, Amann v. Switzerland,
CE:ECHR:2000:0216JUD002779895, § 69, and 13 February 2020, Trajkovski and Chipovski v.
North Macedonia, CE:ECHR:2020:0213JUD005320513, § 51), since access to such data is a
2/15/2021, 4:58 PM