Previous 1 / 28 Next

27/07/2023, 22:38 CURIA - Documents JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 20 September 2022 (*) [Text rectified by order of 27 October 2022] (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector – Confidentiality of communications – Providers of electronic communications services – General and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 15(1) – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) – Article 4(2) TEU) In Joined Cases C‑793/19 and C‑794/19, REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), made by decisions of 25 September 2019, received at the Court on 29 October 2019, in the proceedings Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen, v SpaceNet AG (C‑793/19), Telekom Deutschland GmbH (C‑794/19), THE COURT (Grand Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Arabadjiev, A. Prechal, S. Rodin, I. Jarukaitis and I. Ziemele, Presidents of Chambers, T. von Danwitz, M. Safjan, F. Biltgen, P.G. Xuereb (Rapporteur), N. Piçarra, L.S. Rossi and A. Kumin, Judges, Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Registrar: D. Dittert, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 September 2021, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen, by C. Mögelin, acting as Agent, – [As rectified by order of 27 October 2022] SpaceNet AG, by M. Bäcker, Universitätsprofessor, – Telekom Deutschland GmbH, by T. Mayen, Rechtsanwalt, – the German Government, by J. Möller, F. Halibi, M. Hellmann, D. Klebs and E. Lankenau, acting as Agents, – the Danish Government, by M. Jespersen, J. Nymann-Lindegren, V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agents, – the Estonian Government, by A. Kalbus and M. Kriisa, acting as Agents, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf;jsessionid=A4432EEFFE3535A201E714AE6441EE66?mode=DOC&pageIndex=1&docid=265881… 1/28

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

SpaceNet and Telekom Deutschland

Case Law

Country

Germany

Country Location

Latitude: 51.168768345617636

Longitude: 10.094236493110516

Country Location (linked Case Law): Germany

Decision Date: 20 de set de 2022

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Granted

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy

Judicial Body: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Court Name: COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CJEU)

Case Number: C‑793/19 and C‑794/19

Case Summary: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in two related Grand Chamber judgments, ruled that the German law on data retention is incompatible with European Union (EU) law. The case concerns joined applications by the two telecommunication services operators i.e., SpaceNet and Telekom Deutschland who challenged German Telecommunication Law (2004) on the ground that the obligation imposed on them to retain traffic and location data of their customers violates EU Law. The Administrative Court of Germany observed that the Applicants were not obligated to retain the mentioned telecommunications traffic data as per the German Telecommunication Law. The Federal Court, on appeal, concluded that the German Telecommunication Law aligns with EU law based on the argument that regulations concerning the retention of traffic data, location data, and access to such data by national authorities generally fall within the scope of Directive 2002/58. The CJEU, in line with its prior case law, held a contrary view and affirmed that EU law prohibits any national legislation that mandates the widespread and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data for preventive purposes in combating serious crime and averting significant threats to public security.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction. The CJEU’s ruling is binding both on the referring court and on all courts in Member States.

Related Caselaw (self)

Germany

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: 27 de jul de 2023

Primary Documents

Telkom.pdf
English
Download View