Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Davis & Ors v SSHD
Article 7 of Directive 2006/24 provides, in relation to data protection and data
security, that, without prejudice to the provisions adopted pursuant to Directives
95/46 and 2002/58, certain principles of data protection and data security must be
respected by providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of
public communications networks. According to those principles, Member States are to
ensure that appropriate technical and organisational measures are adopted against
accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss or alteration of the data.
43.
As regards the question of whether that interference satisfies an objective of general
interest, it should be observed that, whilst Directive 2006/24 aims to harmonise
Member States’ provisions concerning the obligations of those providers with respect
to the retention of certain data which are generated or processed by them, the material
objective of that directive is, as follows from Article 1(1) thereof, to ensure that the
data are available for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of
serious crime, as defined by each Member State in its national law. The material
objective of that directive is, therefore, to contribute to the fight against serious crime
and thus, ultimately, to public security.
44.
It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the fight against international
terrorism in order to maintain international peace and security constitutes an objective
of general interest (see, to that effect, Cases C 402/05 P and C 415/05 P Kadi and Al
Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461,
paragraph 363, and Cases C 539/10 P and C 550/10 P Al-Aqsa v Council
EU:C:2012:711, paragraph 130). The same is true of the fight against serious crime in
order to ensure public security (see, to that effect, Case C 145/09 Tsakouridis
EU:C:2010:708, paragraphs 46 and 47). Furthermore, it should be noted, in this
respect, that Article 6 of the Charter lays down the right of any person not only to
liberty, but also to security.
45.
In this respect, it is apparent from recital 7 in the preamble to Directive 2006/24 that,
because of the significant growth in the possibilities afforded by electronic
communications, the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 19 December 2002
concluded that data relating to the use of electronic communications are particularly
important and therefore a valuable tool in the prevention of offences and the fight
against crime, in particular organised crime.
46.
It must therefore be held that the retention of data for the purpose of allowing the
competent national authorities to have possible access to those data, as required by
Directive 2006/24, genuinely satisfies an objective of general interest.
47.
In those circumstances, it is necessary to verify the proportionality of the interference
found to exist.
48.
In that regard, according to the settled case-law of the Court, the principle of
proportionality requires that acts of the EU institutions be appropriate for attaining the
legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and do not exceed the limits
of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve those objectives (see, to that
effect, Case C 343/09 Afton Chemical EU:C:2010:419, paragraph 45; Volker und
Markus Schecke and Eifert EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 74; Cases C 581/10 and C
629/10 Nelson and Others EU:C:2012:657, paragraph 71; Case C 283/11 Sky