Case C-101/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Göta Hovrätten by decision of that court of 23 February 2001 in the case of Bodil Lindqvist v Kammaråklagaren (Public Prosecutor), Jönköpning
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, cross-frontier data flow, disclosure of information, interpretation of the law, personal data, protection of privacy

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/19

particular Article 6(3) thereof, together with Council
Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (4) on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning misleading
advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17) (hereinafter ‘Directive
84/450’), in particular Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude
national legislation which, in connection with the market-
ing of cosmetic products, makes it an offence to refer to
medical opinions, by the use,
the
description ‘clinically tested’ or ‘dermatologically tested’ ,
if erroneous ideas as to the characteristics and functioning
of the cosmetic product could be engendered in the mind
of the consumer, as a result of a lack of information as to
the content and outcome of the opinion in question?

in particular, of

(2) Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Directive 76/768, in particular
Article 6(3) thereof, and Directive 84/450, in particular
Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude national legislation
which permits information coming within the terms of
Question 1 to be used only after prior authorisation by
the competent Federal Minister?

(1) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.
(2) OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46.
(3) OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32.
(4) OJ 1984 L 250 p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Göta Hovrätt-
en by decision of that court of 23 February 2001 in
the case of Bodil Lindqvist v Kammaråklagaren (Public
Prosecutor), Jönköpning

(Case C-101/01)

(2001/C 118/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Göta Hovrätten
of 23 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
on 1 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bodil
Lindqvist v Kammaråklagaren, Jönköpning, on the following
questions:

(1)

Is the mention of a person — by name or with name and
telephone number — on an Internet home page an action
which falls within the scope of the directive? (1) Does it
constitute ‘the processing of personal data wholly or
partly by automatic means’ to list on a self-made Internet
home page a number of persons with comments and
statements about their jobs and hobbies etc?

(2)

If the answer to the first question is no, can the act of
setting up on an Internet home page separate pages for

about fifteen people with links between the pages which
make it possible to search by first name be considered to
constitute ‘the processing otherwise than by automatic
means of personal data which form part of a filing system
or are intended to form part of a filing system’ within the
meaning of Article 3(1)?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes, the Hovrätten
also asks the following questions:

(3) Can the act of loading information of the type described
about work colleagues onto a private home page which
is none the less accessible to anyone who knows its
address be regarded as outside the scope of the directive
on the ground that it is covered by one of the exceptions
in Article 3(2)?

(4)

Is information on a home page stating that a named
colleague has injured her foot and is on half-time on
medical grounds personal data concerning health which,
according to Article 8(1), may not be processed?

(5) The directive prohibits the transfer of personal data to
third countries in certain cases. If a person in Sweden
uses a computer to load personal data onto a home page
stored on a server in Sweden — with the result that
personal data becomes accessible to people in third
countries — does that constitute a transfer of data to a
third country within the meaning of the directive? Would
the answer be the same even if, as far as known, no one
from the third country had in fact accessed the data or if
the server in question is actually physically in a third
country?

(6) Can the provisions of the directive, in a case such as the
above, be regarded as bringing about a restriction which
conflicts with the general principles of
freedom of
expression or other freedoms and rights, which are
applicable within the EU and are enshrined in inter alia
Article 10 of the European Convention on the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

Finally, the Hovrätten asks the following question:

(7) Can a Member State, as regards the issues raised in the
above questions, provide more extensive protection for
personal data or give it a wider scope than the directive,
even if none of the circumstances described in Article 13
exists?

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995
L 281, p. 31).