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

15.07.2019 EU law
ICO to impose record-breaking fines for inadequate security measures and data breaches

Short Reads - Though the European data protection authorities have taken their time in enforcing the GDPR, two announcements by the ICO in the UK regarding proposed fines for British Airways and Marriott demonstrate that large fines are about to start landing regularly. Both of the substantial fines are to be handed out as a result of shortcomings in handling data breaches caused by cyber-attacks.

Read more

27.06.2019 NL law
Stibbe launches website about Digital Economy

Inside Stibbe - Stibbe's Digital Economy group published a new website this week: Stibbedigital.com With this new website we aim to view technological developments including artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, the Internet of Things, smart mobility and the rise of digital platforms from a legal perspective.

Read more

05.07.2019 EU law
The two sides of the ECS coin

Articles - The concept of ‘electronic communications service’ (“ECS”) defined in Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC (“Framework Directive”) has been interpreted in two decisions of the ECJ in June 2019: C‑142/18 Skype communications and C-193/18 Google LLC.

Read more

21.06.2019 NL law
Nieuw boetebeleid van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Short Reads - Op 14 maart 2019 zijn de nieuwe Boetebeleidsregels Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens 2019 ("Boetebeleidsregels") van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens ("AP") gepubliceerd. Dit boetebeleid heeft de AP opgesteld vanwege de inwerkingtreding van de Algemene verordening gegevensverwerking ("AVG") en omdat er op Europees niveau nog geen boeterichtsnoeren zijn opgesteld.

Read more

02.07.2019 NL law
Debate night: HR Analytics: opportunity or threat?

Seminar - On 2 July 2019, Stibbe's Digital Economy Group will host a debate night in Amsterdam on the hot topic of HR analytics. During Stibbe's debate night, speakers from the world of business, politics, science and law will exchange views on HR analytics, how they can be used in practice, and their development in the context of employment and privacy law.

Read more

21.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Data Protection Authority publishes new fining policy

Short Reads - The Dutch Data Protection Authority ("DPA") has published its new Fining policy for Administrative Fines. The new policy was drafted in response to the lack of such guidelines at the European level following the entering into force of the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). In the policy, the DPA elaborates on how the amount of fines for infringements of the GDPR, the Police Data Act, the Judicial and Criminal Records Act and the Telecommunications Act will be calculated. In this blog post, we will discuss the outline of this new policy.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring