Articles

Quod personalis notitia Iovi, non personalis notitia bovi

Quod personalis notitia Iovi, non personalis notitia bovi

Quod personalis notitia Iovi, non personalis notitia bovi

24.02.2017

In its decision of 19 October 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") clarified the concept of personal data. The Court held that an IP address can be qualified as personal data, even if the processor could only identify the actual user through information on the IP address held by an Internet Service Provider ("ISP").

Personal data, which are pivotal in the application of Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC ("the Directive"), are broadly defined as any information relating directly or indirectly to an identifiable natural person.

The case that led to the submission of questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling is about the German politician Mr Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party) who visited several websites operated by German Federal institutions. The website operator (the Federal German Government) stored information on the IP addresses of its visitors. Breyer argued that his IP address qualifies as personal data and that therefore, pursuant to the Directive, the website operator would have to obtain Breyer's consent to store his IP address. The Federal German Government was of the opinion that the IP address did not qualify as personal data, so the issue ended up before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) and this Court submitted the preliminary questions to the CJEU.

The CJEU began by reaffirming its previous ruling in the Scarlet Extended case in which it essentially held that the IP addresses of internet users were protected personal data because they allow users to be precisely identified.1] However, that finding related to the specific situation in which the collection and identification of the IP addresses of internet users are carried out by ISPs.[2]

What makes this case different to the Scarlet Extended case is that it is not the ISP but rather the website operator who is collecting the IP addresses of website visitors. The Federal German Government does not have direct access to the additional data that are necessary for it to identify the user behind the IP address because that information is held by the ISP. Furthermore, the IP address from Breyer was a "dynamic IP address" that changes every time the user connects to a network, making identification of the user virtually impossible without additional information from the ISP.

The CJEU notes that it is common ground that a dynamic IP address as such does not qualify as personal data, since such an address does not directly reveal the identity of the natural person who owns the computer from which a website was accessed. To identify a natural person behind a dynamic IP address, additional data is needed, and such data is held by the ISP and not by the website operator.

The CJEU continued by investigating whether a dynamic IP address can qualify as personal data if there is indirect access to such information held by the ISP. The CJEU noted that if the information needed from the ISP is legally or practically unobtainable, the risk of user identification by the website operator appears in reality to be insignificant.[3] However, the CJEU held that dynamic IP addresses are personal data if the website operator has "the legal means which enable it to identify the data subject with additional data which the internet service provider has about that person."

As for the specific case at hand, the CJEU considered that for cyberattacks, website operators do have access to legal channels that enable them to obtain the information from the ISP to identify the data subjects behind the dynamic IP addresses. This consideration is subject to verification to be performed by the German Federal Court. If the German Federal Court finds this consideration valid, then Breyer's dynamic IP address will qualify as personal data.

In this ruling, the CJEU introduces a further “subjective” or “relative” criterion to define personal data. Whether information is personal data depends on the capability of the processor to identify the natural person behind the data. Although this criterion stems directly from the wording of the Directive/GDPR, one can easily see that it can lead to qualification issues.

The case (C-582/14) can be found here.

 

[1]ECLI:EU:C:2016:779 paragraph 33 (Breyer) referencing to ECLI:EU:C:2011:771 paragraph 51 (Scarlet Extended).

[2] We note that the European Data Protection Authorities ("DPAs") broadened the scope even further by concluding that every static IP address is, or should be treated as, personal data, since in theory it would be possible to gather enough information about the browsing history of an individual so that he or she could be identified.

[3] ECLI:EU:C:2016:779 paragraph 46 (Breyer)

Team

Related news

22.07.2021 NL law
Towards a European legal framework for the development and use of Artificial Intelligence

Short Reads - Back in 2014, Stephen Hawking said, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Although the use of artificial intelligence is nothing new and dates back to Alan Turing (the godfather of computational theory), prominent researchers – along with Stephen Hawking – have expressed their concerns about the unregulated use of AI systems and their impact on society as we know it.

Read more

18.06.2021 NL law
FAQ: Wat houdt het Wetsvoorstel elektronische gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg (Wegiz) in en wat is de verhouding tot de AVG?

Short Reads - (Digitale) gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg is een actueel thema. Illustratief is een item bij EenVandaag van april 2021 waarin de analoge werkwijze bij gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg wordt aangekaart, maar ook dit artikel in het NRC van afgelopen maand waarin verslag werd gedaan van een datalek waardoor duizenden gevoelige patiëntgegevens op straat kwamen te liggen. 

Read more

19.07.2021 BE law
One year of Schrems II: a state of affairs for international data transfers

Articles - International data transfers have been the subject of intense debates ever since the Court of Justice issued its landmark judgement of Schrems I, on 6 October 2015. The intensity of the debate was further reinforced since the Schrems II decision one year ago, on 16 July 2020. The decision annulled the U.S. Privacy Shield and severely tightened the rules on the use of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”).

Read more

18.05.2021 NL law
Kroniek: De bestuursrechtelijke aspecten van de AVG

Articles - Tom Barkhuysen, Steven Bastiaans en Fatma Çapkurt (Universiteit Leiden) schreven samen de eerste editie van de nieuwe jaarlijkse NTB kroniek: de bestuursrechtelijke aspecten van de AVG. Hierin bespreken zij onder meer de meest relevante (bestuursrechtelijke) jurisprudentie van het afgelopen jaar op het gebied van de AVG.

Read more