# C_2022084EN.01002601.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos v Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija

(Case C-683/21)

(2022/C 84/34)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos

Defendant: Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is planning to acquire a data collection tool (mobile application) by way of public procurement, irrespective of the fact that a public procurement contract has not been concluded and that the created product (mobile application), for the acquisition of which a public procurement procedure had been used, has not been transferred, is also to be regarded as a controller? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is planning to acquire a data collection tool (mobile application) by way of public procurement, irrespective of the fact that a public procurement contract has not been concluded and that the created product (mobile application), for the acquisition of which a public procurement procedure had been used, has not been transferred, is also to be regarded as a controller?

| 2. | Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority which has not acquired the right of ownership of the created IT product and has not taken possession of it, but where the final version of the created application provides links or interfaces to that public entity and/or the confidentiality policy, which was not officially approved or recognised by the public entity in question, specified that public entity itself as a controller, is also to be regarded as a controller? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority which has not acquired the right of ownership of the created IT product and has not taken possession of it, but where the final version of the created application provides links or interfaces to that public entity and/or the confidentiality policy, which was not officially approved or recognised by the public entity in question, specified that public entity itself as a controller, is also to be regarded as a controller?

| 3. | Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a person who has not performed any actual data processing operations as defined in Article 4(2) of the GDPR and/or has not provided clear permission/consent to the performance of such operations is also to be regarded as a controller? Is the fact that the IT product used for the processing of personal data was created in accordance with the assignment formulated by the contracting authority significant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a person who has not performed any actual data processing operations as defined in Article 4(2) of the GDPR and/or has not provided clear permission/consent to the performance of such operations is also to be regarded as a controller? Is the fact that the IT product used for the processing of personal data was created in accordance with the assignment formulated by the contracting authority significant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’?

| 4. | If the determination of actual data processing operations is relevant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’, is the definition of ‘processing’ of personal data under Article 4(2) of the GDPR to be interpreted as also covering situations in which copies of personal data have been used for the testing of IT systems in the process for the acquisition of a mobile application? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the determination of actual data processing operations is relevant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’, is the definition of ‘processing’ of personal data under Article 4(2) of the GDPR to be interpreted as also covering situations in which copies of personal data have been used for the testing of IT systems in the process for the acquisition of a mobile application?

| 5. | Can joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) of the GDPR be interpreted exclusively as involving deliberately coordinated actions in respect of the determination of the purpose and means of data processing, or can that concept also be interpreted as meaning that joint control also covers situations in which there is no clear ‘arrangement’ in respect of the purpose and means of data processing and/or actions are not coordinated between the entities? Are the circumstance relating to the stage in the creation of the means of personal data processing (IT application) at which personal data were processed and the purpose of the creation of the application legally significant for the interpretation of the concept of joint control of data? Can an ‘arrangement’ between joint controllers be understood exclusively as a clear and defined establishment of terms governing the joint control of data? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) of the GDPR be interpreted exclusively as involving deliberately coordinated actions in respect of the determination of the purpose and means of data processing, or can that concept also be interpreted as meaning that joint control also covers situations in which there is no clear ‘arrangement’ in respect of the purpose and means of data processing and/or actions are not coordinated between the entities? Are the circumstance relating to the stage in the creation of the means of personal data processing (IT application) at which personal data were processed and the purpose of the creation of the application legally significant for the interpretation of the concept of joint control of data? Can an ‘arrangement’ between joint controllers be understood exclusively as a clear and defined establishment of terms governing the joint control of data?

| 6. | Is the provision in Article 83(1) of the GDPR to the effect that ‘administrative fines ... shall ... be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ to be interpreted as also covering cases of imposition of liability on the ‘controller’ when, in the process of the creation of an IT product, the developer also performs personal data processing actions, and do the improper personal data processing actions carried out by the processor always give rise automatically to legal liability on the part of the controller? Is that provision to be interpreted as also covering cases of no-fault liability on the part of the controller? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the provision in Article 83(1) of the GDPR to the effect that ‘administrative fines ... shall ... be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ to be interpreted as also covering cases of imposition of liability on the ‘controller’ when, in the process of the creation of an IT product, the developer also performs personal data processing actions, and do the improper personal data processing actions carried out by the processor always give rise automatically to legal liability on the part of the controller? Is that provision to be interpreted as also covering cases of no-fault liability on the part of the controller?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (the General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---