03/02/2020 CURIA - Documents erasure of personal data concerning them, which have been entered in the register pursuant to the latter provision, or the blocking of that data from the public. That interpretation of Article 6(1)(e) and Article 12(b) of Directive 95/46 does not, moreover, result in disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of the persons concerned, and particularly their right to respect for private life and their right to protection of personal data as guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. First, Article 2(1)(d) and (j) and Article 3 of Directive 68/151 require disclosure only for a limited number of personal data items, namely those relating to the identity and the respective functions of persons having the power to bind the company concerned to third parties and to represent it or take part in the administration, supervision or control of that company, or having been appointed as liquidator of that company. Secondly, as pointed out in paragraph 49 of the present judgment, Directive 68/151 provides for disclosure of the data referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) thereof, due, in particular, to the fact that the only safeguards that jointstock companies and limited liability companies offer to third parties are their assets, which constitutes an increased economic risk for the latter. In view of this, it appears justified that natural persons who choose to participate in trade through such a company are required to disclose the data relating to their identity and functions within that company, especially since they are aware of that requirement when they decide to engage in such activity. Finally, as regards subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46, it must be pointed out that, whereas it follows from the foregoing that, in the weighting to be carried out under that provision, in principle, the need to protect the interests of third parties in relation to joint-stock companies and limited liability companies and to ensure legal certainty, fair trading and thus the proper functioning of the internal market take precedence, it cannot be excluded, however, that there may be specific situations in which the overriding and legitimate reasons relating to the specific case of the person concerned justify exceptionally that access to personal data entered in the register is limited, upon expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company in question, to third parties who can demonstrate a specific interest in their consultation. In that regard, however, it should be pointed out that, in so far as the application of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 is subject to the proviso that national law does not lay down a provision to the contrary, the final decision as to whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of Directive 68/151 may apply to the authority responsible for keeping the register for such limitation of access to personal data concerning them, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, is a matter for the national legislatures. It is for the referring court to determine the provisions of its national law in that regard. Assuming that such an examination reveals that national law permits such applications, it will be for the national court to assess, having regard to all the relevant circumstances and taking into account the time elapsed since the dissolution of the company concerned, the possible existence of legitimate and overriding reasons which, as the case may be, exceptionally justify limiting third parties’ access to the data concerning Mr Manni in the company register, from which it is apparent that he was the sole administrator and liquidator of Immobiliare Salentina. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the mere fact that, allegedly, the properties of a tourist complex built by Italiana Costruzioni, of which Mr Manni is currently the sole director, do not sell because of the fact that potential purchasers of those properties have access to that data in the company register, cannot be regarded as constituting such a reason, in particular in view of the legitimate interest of those purchasers in having that information. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred must be that Article 6(1)(e), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Directive 68/151, must be interpreted as meaning that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the Member States to determine whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of that directive may apply to the authority responsible for keeping the register to determine, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, if it is exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, on the expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company concerned, access to personal data relating to them, entered in that register, to third parties who can demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data. Costs Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: Article 6(1)(e), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, as amended by Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the Member States to determine whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of that directive may apply to the authority responsible for keeping, respectively, the central register, commercial register or companies register to determine, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, if it is exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, on the expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company concerned, access to personal data relating to them, entered in that register, to third parties who can demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data. [Signatures] curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=188750&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1151671 7/8