WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of journalistic purposes in the EU data protection directive

The EU data protection directive has caused a lot of legal headaches in Sweden. On 13 June 2001, it was announced that the Supreme Court considered the home page of a defendant (Börje Ramsbro) to be of a journalistic nature and hence not to be covered by the Swedish Personal Data Protection Act. Its judgment therefore ran counter to earlier judgments delivered by the Stockholm District Court and the Svea Court of Appeal, both of which took the view that data protection legislation had been infringed. The Data Protection Inspectorate and the Prosecutor-General's Office were also rebuffed for having misinterpreted the Personal Data Protection Act. After two years

of litigation, the Supreme Court cleared Börje Ramsbro, stating in its judgment that [the home page] is considered to serve a journalistic purpose of informing, exercising criticism and arousing debate on social issues of importance to the public. The Supreme Court stresses, however, that it is not for the court to make a qualitative assessment of the page or of its contents, which may instead be the subject of a normal defamation lawsuit.

The Supreme Court ruled that public fugues such as bank directors and politicians must tolerate criticism of their professional roles, even if such criticism appears on private home pages on the internet. The Supreme Court takes the view that this does not run counter either to the Personal Data Protection Act or to the European directive on which that act is based. The judgment has great fundamental significance for all Swedish home pages. The term journalistic purposes must henceforth be interpreted much more broadly than in the past. The relevant exception must apply not only to journalists and constitutionally protected media but also to ordinary members of the public who wish to level criticism at named persons in positions of power.

Does the Commission consider that the term journalistic purposes should be interpreted broadly, as maintained by the Supreme Court?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission would recall that, under the terms of Article 9 of Directive 95/46/EC of the 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(1) (the data protection Directive), Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from some provisions of the Directive for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression, only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of information.

In implementation of this article, the Swedish Data Protection Act of 1998 provides as follows [Swedish version]:

7 § Bestämmelserna i denna lag tillämpas inte i den utsträckning det skulle strida mot bestämmelserna om tryck- och yttrandefrihet i tryckfrihetsförordningen eller yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen.

Bestämmelserna i 9-29 och 33-44 §§ samt 45 § första stycket och 47-49 §§ skall inte tillämpas på sådan behandling av personuppgifter som sker uteslutande för journalistiska ändamål eller konstnärligt eller litterärt skapande.

It is not for the Commission to comment on national court rulings, including the Swedish Supreme Court Ruling the Honourable Member refers to, applying national law in specific cases. The interpretation of the Directive is in the final resort a matter for the European Court of Justice, in particular through preliminary rulings issued on the basis of Article 234 of the EC Treaty. In this respect, the Commission would note that the Göta Hovrätt in Sweden has submitted a series of questions to the Court of Justice concerning a home page (Case C-101/01, Åklagarmyndigheten I Jönköping, pending).

(1) JO L 281, 23.11.1995.