95. With respect to that last issue, the first sentence of
Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 provides that Member States
may adopt a measure that derogates from the principle of
confidentiality of communications and related traffic data
where it is a ‘necessary, appropriate and proportionate
measure within a democratic society’, in view of the objectives
laid down in that provision. As regards recital 11 of that
directive, it states that a measure of that kind must be ‘strictly’
proportionate to the intended purpose. In relation to, in
particular, the retention of data, the requirement laid down in
the second sentence of Article 15(1) of that directive is that
data should be retained ‘for a limited period’ and be ‘justified’
by reference to one of the objectives stated in the first sentence
of Article 15(1) of that directive.
96. Due regard to the principle of proportionality also derives
from the Court’s settled case-law to the effect that the
protection of the fundamental right to respect for private life at
EU level requires that derogations from and limitations on the
protection of personal data should apply only in so far as is
strictly necessary (judgments of 16 December 2008,
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, C-73/07,
EU:C:2008:727, paragraph 56; of 9 November 2010, Volker
und Markus Schecke and Eifert, C-92/09 and C-93/09,
EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 77; the Digital Rights judgment,
paragraph 52, and of 6 October 2015, Schrems, C-362/14,
EU:C:2015:650, paragraph 92).”
27.
In paragraph 97 to 107, the Court primarily addresses the Swedish statute and
is critical of it, citing a number of paragraphs of the DRI Judgment, and
concludes in respect of the First Question (raised in the Swedish proceedings),
against the background of the Swedish statute and the context of investigation
of crime, as follows:
“108. However, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in the
light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter,
does not prevent a Member State from adopting legislation
permitting, as a preventive measure, the targeted retention of
traffic and location data, for the purpose of fighting serious
crime, provided that the retention of data is limited, with
respect to the categories of data to be retained, the means of
communication affected, the persons concerned and the
retention period adopted, to what is strictly necessary.
109. In order to satisfy the requirements set out in the
preceding paragraph of the present judgment, that national
Page 26