IP case law Court of Justice

Referral C-481/21 (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 4 Aug 2021)

Considered in the light of Article 54 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 14 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation under which, in the case of joint responsibility for data processing, the entity actually responsible for the data stored does not have to be named, and which also allows access to be refused without substantive reasons being given to a court?

If Questions 1(a) and 1(b) are answered in the affirmative, is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 consistent with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 1 even though it would thus be impossible for the court to join to the proceedings, in accordance with national procedural rules, in a multi-stage administrative procedure, the other authority which is involved and is actually responsible and which must give its consent to the provision of access to data; and substantively to verify whether the conditions for the refusal of access are met and have been correctly applied by the authority refusing access?

Does the refusal of access and thus of an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter unlawfully interfere with the freedom to choose an occupation under Article 15 of the Charter in the case where the information stored is used to exclude a data subject from the desired activity on the ground of an alleged security risk?

Case details on the CJEU website (external link)