Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:399
Date: 2025-06-05
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Fundamental rights;Data protection;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-541/24 – 1 
Case C-541/24 [Naltov] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
9 August 2024 
Referring court:  
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
2 August 2024 
Applicant: 
SQ 
Decision-making body: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The proceedings arise from a request by a lawyer who wishes to access the files in 
a case that is pending before the referring court, without being an authorised 
representative of any of the parties or himself being a party to that case. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU concerns the right of 
all lawyers to have unrestricted access to files in all cases, as provided for in 
Bulgarian law. The referring court asks whether that right is compatible with the 
Treaty on European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union (hereinafter: the Charter) and 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 (General Data Protection 
Regulation) (hereinafter: GDPR). It also asks the Court to determine whether a 
legitimate interest must always be demonstrated in order for file access to be 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-541/24 
 
2  
granted to a person who is neither an authorised representative of any of the 
parties nor himself or herself a party to a case; whether the court’s decision to 
grant file access in such cases always requires the consent of all parties; and 
whether a judge’s refusal to apply a relevant rule which he or she considers to be 
incompatible with EU law may lead to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings 
against that judge. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is Article 47 read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and the 
GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that a lawyer who does not represent 
any of the parties in a particular case may be granted unrestricted access to 
the files in that case solely by virtue of being a lawyer? 
2. Is Article 47 read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and the 
GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that a person who is neither a lawyer of 
a party or himself or herself a party to a particular case must always 
demonstrate a legitimate interest in order to obtain access to the files in that 
case? 
3. Is Article 47 read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and 
Article 6(1)(a) GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the consent of all 
parties to a case is always required in order for file access to be granted to a 
person who is neither a lawyer of a party or himself or herself a party in that 
case? 
4. Are Article 47 of the Charter and Article 19 TEU to be interpreted as 
meaning that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against a judge who 
granted file access in a particular case to a person who is neither a party to 
nor a lawyer in that case: 
(a) before a provision of national law was declared incompatible with EU law 
(b) after a provision of national law was declared incompatible with EU law 
5. Are Article 47 of the Charter and Article 19 TEU to be interpreted as 
meaning that a national court may refuse to follow the instructions of 
another national court which is examining the legality of an administrative 
act governing the conduct of proceedings before the first-mentioned court, 
where the first-mentioned national court has doubts as to the compatibility 
of a national rule with EU law and considers that the contested 
administrative act is compatible with EU law? 
6. Is Article 19(1) TEU read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter 
(courts/tribunals shall be independent and impartial) to be interpreted as 
meaning that all EU judges must comply with uniform harmonised 
NALTOV 
 
3 
minimum ethical standards with respect to their conduct and, in particular, 
the principle of data protection (confidentiality and professional secrecy)? 
Provisions of European Union law and international texts 
Treaty on European Union – Article 19 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 7, 8 and 47 
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 (General Data Protection Regulation) – recital 20, Article 6(1) 
and Article 23(1)(f) 
Code of Conduct for Lawyers in the European Union – Article 2.3. 
(‘Confidentiality’) 
Bangalore principles of judicial ethics – Value 4 (‘Propriety’) 
National legislation and other provisions of national law 
Zakon za advokaturata (Act on the Legal Profession) – Article 31(1) and 
Article 45 
Pravilnik za administratsiata na sadilishtata (Regulations on Court 
Administration) – Article 5(1) subparagraph 1, Article 6(1), Article 77 and 
Article 78(1) 
Etichen kodeks na advokata (Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers) – Article 5 
(‘Confidentiality’) 
Kodeks za etichno povedenie na bulgarskite sadii (Judicial Code of Conduct for 
Bulgaria) – Rule 8 (‘Rules of conduct arising from the principle of 
confidentiality’) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and proceedings 
1 The main proceedings are based on an action brought by four of the 18 heirs to 
immovable property, the ownership of which was seized in favour of the State 
between 1945 and 1989. The action is directed against the administrative act 
refusing restitution of the property. The defendant is the administrative authority 
that issued the administrative act; the other 14 heirs were summoned to appear as 
interested parties. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-541/24 
 
4  
2 At the same time, civil proceedings are pending at second instance before the 
Apelativen sad – Sofia (Sofia Court of Appeal) concerning ownership of this 
property. The parties in this case are SQ and some of the applicants in the main 
proceedings before the referring court. Those applicants have asked the Sofia 
Court of Appeal to stay the proceedings pending the decision of the referring 
court, as they consider that the decision in the case pending before the referring 
court is of decisive importance. The Court of Appeal gave SQ the opportunity to 
comment on the application to stay proceedings. 
3 To that end, SQ’s lawyer wished to have access to the files in the case pending 
before the referring court. However, since neither SQ nor his lawyer is a party to 
that case, the lawyer submitted a request for file access, as ordered by the registrar 
of the referring court. That order was contested as unlawful before another court 
and the proceedings there are still pending. 
4 In its open session of 30 July 2024, the referring court asked the parties who had 
appeared whether they agreed to grant SQ’s lawyer access to the files in the main 
proceedings. The parties who appeared gave their consent; the others did not 
submit any comments. The lawyers of the parties who appeared agree that every 
lawyer must have free access to the files in every case, irrespective of whether he 
or she represents a party in that case or whether he or she is a party himself or 
herself. 
Succinct presentation of the national rules on lawyers’ access to case files 
5 Under Article 31(1) of the Zakon za advokaturata (Act on the Legal Profession, 
hereinafter: ZA), lawyers have, solely by virtue of their status as lawyers, which is 
attested by the production of an identity card issued by the Vissh advokatski savet 
(Supreme Bar Council), free access to case files at the courts, the investigating 
authorities, the administrative authorities and other services in the national 
territory and anywhere that proves necessary, and may consult these and receive 
copies of documents and, primarily, information. 
6 Pursuant to Article 77(3) of the Pravilnik za administratsiata na sadilishtata 
(Regulations on Court Administration, hereinafter: PAS), lawyers exercise their 
right of access to information in cases, as provided for in Article 31 ZA, in such a 
way that, even if they do not have authority to act in the proceedings in question, 
they may freely access and consult files solely by virtue of their status as lawyers, 
which is attested by the production of their lawyer’s identity card. 
7 Other persons who are not parties to a given case have, under Article 77(4) PAS, a 
right of access to information in the proceedings if they have a legitimate interest, 
which is to be set out in a reasoned written request.  
8 Article 5(1) subparagraph 1 PAS provides that the organisation of the work of any 
court is to be determined by order of its registrar. On that basis, the registrar of the 
referring Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia District Court) issued Order 
NALTOV 
 
5 
No 8/24.04.2024. This states that: ‘At the express request and order of the 
rapporteur, copies of the documents produced in the proceedings shall be made 
available to a lawyer who is not an authorised representative in the case in 
question. Files may be directly accessed only by lawyers who are authorised to act 
in the case (no direct file access for lawyers who are not authorised 
representatives of any of the parties)’. 
9 That order of the District Court registrar was contested as unlawful before the 
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia), where 
the case is still pending. In its grounds for the decision setting a hearing in the 
present case, the court stated that this order had not become final, as it was being 
contested, and that lawyers have access to the case files in accordance with 
Article 31 ZA and Article 77(3) PAS, that is to say, they enjoy unrestricted access 
for all cases, regardless of whether they represent the respective parties or not, 
until the proceedings have been concluded. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for the preliminary 
ruling 
10 The referring court points out that the right of all lawyers to access files in all 
cases was introduced by the legislature with the aim of making it easier for them 
to decide whether to accept a particular instruction. Furthermore, access to legal 
counsel is a right enshrined in the Charter, which guarantees the right to an 
impartial tribunal under Article 47 of the Charter. The right of lawyers to access 
files ensures the fulfilment of their obligation to represent the interests of their 
clients. It is also a procedural instrument guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. A 
lawyer always has the right to obtain information about the case in order to be 
able to represent his or her client’s interests. 
11 However, the question arises as to whether the lawyer’s duty to keep his or her 
client’s secrets confidential, as provided for in the ZA, applies to all information 
he or she obtains when accessing files relating to cases in which his or her client is 
not a party. It also needs to be clarified whether the principle of confidentiality 
only applies in the relationship between lawyer and client or also covers the 
relationship between court and lawyer. 
12 The GDPR requires the court to ensure the protection of personal data. According 
to recital 20, the GDPR applies ‘inter alia’ to judicial proceedings. In order to 
guarantee the independence of courts, Article 23 GDPR introduces a restriction in 
cases where the independence of the judiciary and the exercise of its decision-
making power in cases are at issue. In the present case, it is not a question of 
deciding a legal dispute, but of deciding whether to grant file access in a particular 
case. All legal cases contain personal data relating to parties and participants 
(witnesses, experts, interpreters and sign language interpreters). Personal data are 
processed in this respect. The conditions for the lawfulness of the processing of 
personal data set out in Article 6(1) GDPR include the condition set out in point 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-541/24 
 
6  
(c): ‘processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the 
controller is subject’. 
13 Courts are controllers of personal data and are therefore required to comply with 
the principles and conditions for lawful processing. It is unclear to the referring 
court whether the provision of information from a separate case to a person who is 
neither a party nor an authorised representative constitutes an infringement of the 
protection of personal data. This is important because this information was 
gathered in the case in question and the court, as a judicial authority, is bound by 
the ethical principle of confidentiality. If the court grants file access to a lawyer 
who does not represent any party to the case, it de facto is disseminating 
information obtained in the exercise of its functions and making it available to 
third parties. Very often, the files contain sensitive information that should not be 
generally accessible (for example, in adoption or matrimonial matters). 
14 In the referring court’s view, the scope of Article 31 ZA and Article 77(3) PAS, 
which provide for unrestricted access in terms of type and volume to personal data 
for lawyers who do not represent any of the parties to the case in question, should 
therefore be limited. Such an abstract possibility (to access files in legal cases) is 
not provided for in the GDPR. 
15 Furthermore, pursuant to Article 77(4) PAS, any person who is not a party to a 
case may, on the order of a judge, have access to the case files if they have a 
legitimate interest in doing so, substantiated by a reasoned request. However, that 
restriction does not apply to lawyers, who are granted access solely by virtue of 
their status as lawyers. Lawyers therefore enjoy privileged access to the files 
solely because they belong to that professional group. They are therefore placed in 
a better position than other persons who are not involved in the proceedings. 
16 In these circumstances, anyone who is not a party to a particular case could 
instruct a lawyer to examine the matter, thereby circumventing the requirement to 
demonstrate a legitimate interest under Article 77(4) PAS. It would thus be 
possible to obtain information from categories of personal data without having to 
demonstrate a legitimate interest. The referring court takes the view that there is 
therefore a suspicion of circumvention of the law. 
17 In the present case, the lawyer of a person who is not a party to the proceedings 
before the referring court requested access to the case files from said court. In 
setting out the grounds to demonstrate a legitimate interest in file access, the 
lawyer states that he wishes to obtain information relevant to proceedings pending 
before another court. It is for the referring court to decide whether he should be 
granted the access requested. Since the order of the registrar of the referring court 
has been contested and has therefore not become final, said court is required under 
Article 31 ZA and Article 77(3) PAS to grant the lawyer access to the case files, 
irrespective of whether he is a representative of a party or a party himself. 
NALTOV 
 
7 
18 However, the referring court considers that those provisions are disproportionate 
in light of the GDPR and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and that lawyers should 
not have free access to the files of all cases. The referring court therefore wishes 
to ascertain whether it can refuse to apply those provisions on the grounds that 
they are contrary to EU law. 
19 Objective compliance with the provisions of Article 31 ZA and Article 77(3) PAS 
would, in the court’s view, constitute a breach of the judge’s obligation of 
confidentiality and professional secrecy (as laid down in a number of ethics 
manuals at national, supranational and international level, in particular the 
Bangalore Principles [United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime], the opinions of 
the Advisory Council of European Judges [Council of Europe], the 
recommendations of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice 
[CEPEJ], the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, etc.) and this 
would open the judge up to disciplinary liability. Judicial independence would 
thus be compromised. 
20 If the provisions of Article 31 ZA and Article 77(3) PAS were applied, ignoring 
the GDPR, the parties in the case in question would be entitled to compensation 
under Article 82 GDPR. The court would be liable to pay compensation in its 
capacity as controller for the processing of personal data and as the person who 
obtained the data. Due to functional immunity, the obligation to pay compensation 
should not lie with the individual judge. The court would therefore be required to 
grant file access to any lawyer in accordance with Article 31 ZA and Article 77(3) 
PAS, for as long as these provisions are held not to be incompatible with EU law. 
Furthermore, if these provisions were applied, the court would make itself liable 
to pay compensation because it would make personal data available to a third 
party in breach of the principle of confidentiality. 
21 In order to uphold the rule of law, the conflict between the interests of the lawyer 
and his or her client and the principle of the protection of personal data requires an 
interpretation of the concepts of an impartial court or tribunal within the meaning 
of Article 47 of the Charter and of an independent court or tribunal within the 
meaning of Article 19 TEU. 
22 It is not clear to the referring court whether it follows from the GDPR and 
Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter that any person, who is neither a party to nor a 
representative of a party in a case, must demonstrate a legitimate interest in order 
to obtain access to the case files. The question is whether file access for lawyers 
should be granted in abstract general terms, as provided for in the national 
legislation in question, or whether a legitimate interest must be demonstrated in 
each individual case, which must be examined by the court in light of the 
circumstances of the case. 
23 The referring court also raises the question of whether the consent of the parties to 
a specific case must be obtained in order for a lawyer, who is not a representative 
in that case, to have access to the case files (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-541/24 
 
8  
24 As regards the ethical principles and rules of conduct for judges, the referring 
court observes that there is no uniform codification at European Union level of 
uniform minimum ethical standards for all judges with a view to ensuring the rule 
of law. The principle of confidentiality is a universal principle for every European 
judge. It must therefore be examined whether Article 19(1) TEU, read in 
conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, is to be interpreted as meaning that 
every judge is required to observe the ethical principle of confidentiality and the 
protection of professional secrets of which he or she has become aware in the 
course of and in connection with the performance of his or her duties. It is not 
clear to the referring court whether the principle of court independence and 
impartiality is to be interpreted as meaning that all judges in the European Union 
must comply with uniform, harmonised minimum ethical standards for their 
conduct, in particular in the area of data protection and confidentiality.