# C_2019131EN.01000601.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Proceedings brought by Sergejs Buivids

(Case C-345/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 3 - Scope - Video recording of police officers carrying out procedural measures in a police station - Publication on a video website - Article 9 - Processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes - Meaning - Freedom of expression - Protection of privacy)

(2019/C 131/06)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Sergejs Buivids

Other party: Datu valsts inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the recording of a video of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, are matters which come within the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the recording of a video of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, are matters which come within the scope of that directive.

| 2. | Article 9 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that factual circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, that is to say, the video recording of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that recorded video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, within the meaning of that provision, in so far as it is apparent from that video that the sole object of that recording and publication thereof is the disclosure of information, opinions or ideas to the public, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that factual circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, that is to say, the video recording of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that recorded video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, within the meaning of that provision, in so far as it is apparent from that video that the sole object of that recording and publication thereof is the disclosure of information, opinions or ideas to the public, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---