Request for a preliminary ruling on interpreting Article 85 of the GDPR, addressing the balance between personal data protection and freedom of expression
Today, a request for a preliminary ruling was officially published from the Attunda tingsrätt (Sweden), concerning the case ND v Garrapatica AB (C-199/24), lodged on 13 March 2024.
The dispute involves Garrapatica AB, which operates Lexbase, a database publishing personal details of individuals involved in criminal proceedings. ND seeks SEK 300,000 in damages, claiming GDPR violations, while Garrapatica AB contends that GDPR does not apply due to a publication certificate.
The court seeks clarification on:
- Whether Article 85(1) of the GDPR allows Member States to implement additional legislative measures beyond those in Article 85(2) for non-journalistic data processing purposes.
- If so, whether Article 85(1) allows for reconciling data protection with freedom of expression, limiting legal remedies to defamation proceedings.
- If the previous questions are answered negatively, whether publishing criminal convictions online for a fee without editing constitutes data processing under Article 85(2) of the GDPR.3. If the first or second questions are answered negatively, does making criminal convictions available online for a fee, without processing or editing, constitute data processing for purposes outlined in Article 85(2) of the GDPR?