CURIA - Documents
41 of 58
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?docid=2320...
entailed by the retention of traffic and location data. Accordingly, only non-serious interference
with those fundamental rights may be justified by the objective of preventing, investigating,
detecting and prosecuting criminal offences in general (see, to that effect, judgments of
21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970, paragraph 102, and of
2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraphs 56 and 57; Opinion 1/15
(EU-Canada PNR Agreement) of 26 July 2017, EU:C:2017:592, paragraph 149).
141
National legislation providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location
data for the purpose of combating serious crime exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and
cannot be considered to be justified, within a democratic society, as required by Article 15(1) of
Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter (see, to
that effect, judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970,
paragraph 107).
142
In view of the sensitive nature of the information that traffic and location data may provide, the
confidentiality of that data is essential for the right to respect for private life. Thus, having regard,
first, to the deterrent effect on the exercise of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 11
of the Charter, referred to in paragraph 118 above, which is liable to result from the retention of that
data, and, second, to the seriousness of the interference entailed by such retention, it is necessary,
within a democratic society, that retention be the exception and not the rule, as provided for in the
system established by Directive 2002/58, and that the data not be retained systematically and
continuously. That conclusion applies even having regard to the objectives of combating serious
crime and preventing serious threats to public security and to the importance to be attached to them.
143
In addition, the Court has emphasised that legislation providing for the general and indiscriminate
retention of traffic and location data covers the electronic communications of practically the entire
population without any differentiation, limitation or exception being made in the light of the
objective pursued. Such legislation, in contrast to the requirement mentioned in paragraph 133
above, is comprehensive in that it affects all persons using electronic communications services,
even though those persons are not, even indirectly, in a situation that is liable to give rise to criminal
proceedings. It therefore applies even to persons with respect to whom there is no evidence capable
of suggesting that their conduct might have a link, even an indirect or remote one, with that
objective of combating serious crime and, in particular, without there being any relationship
between the data whose retention is provided for and a threat to public security (see, to that effect,
judgments of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights, C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, EU:C:2014:238, paragraphs 57
and 58, and of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970, paragraph 105).
144
In particular, as the Court has previously held, such legislation is not restricted to retention in
relation to (i) data pertaining to a time period and/or geographical area and/or a group of persons
likely to be involved, in one way or another, in a serious crime, or (ii) persons who could, for other
reasons, contribute, through their data being retained, to combating serious crime (see, to that effect,
judgments of 8 April 2014, Digital Rights, C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, EU:C:2014:238, paragraph 59,
and of 21 December 2016, Tele2, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970, paragraph 106).
145
Even the positive obligations of the Member States which may arise, depending on the
circumstances, from Articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Charter and relating, as pointed out in paragraphs 126
and 128 of the present judgment, to the establishment of rules to facilitate effective action to combat
criminal offences cannot have the effect of justifying interference that is as serious as that entailed
by legislation providing for the retention of traffic and location data with the fundamental rights,
enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, of practically the entire population, without there being
a link, at least an indirect one, between the data of the persons concerned and the objective pursued.
146
By contrast, in accordance with what has been stated in paragraphs 142 to 144 of the present
judgment, and having regard to the balance that must be struck between the rights and interests at
issue, the objectives of combating serious crime, preventing serious attacks on public security and, a
2/15/2021, 4:58 PM