WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Interpretation of journalistic purposes in the EU data protection directive.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Sweden, data protection, freedom of communication, freedom of expression, interpretation of the law, personal data, press, protection of privacy

C 147 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

The Commission is of the opinion that when Community legislation already lays down a criterion for
salmonella in meat preparations, there is no need to extend the additional salmonella guarantees to these
products. Community legislation on food hygiene is currently under review and in that framework the
Commission is in the process of revising microbiological criteria. In this context improved sampling rules
and limits may be considered for meat preparations in order to tighten up the controls.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(2002/C 147 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the EU data protection directive

(17 January 2002)

Have all Member States now ratified the data protection directive? If not, what does the Commission
intend to do to ensure that the directive comes into force throughout the Union as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

To date, all Member States but two (Ireland and Luxembourg) have informed the Commission that they
have adopted legislative or administratives measures to comply with 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).

Following the entry into force of the Directive on 15 October 1998, the Commission had started formal
infringement procedures against the nine Member States that had failed to notify transposition of the
Directive. These procedures have been dropped for those Member States that have communicated in the
meantime the adoption of implementation measures. In the case of Irleland, the infringement procedure
follows its course, and in the case of Luxembourg, the Commission action has led to this Member State
being condemned by the Court of Justice in ruling C-450/00.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2002/C 147 E/240)

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,

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/227

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,
to privacy with the rules governing freedom of
only if
information.

they are necessary to reconcile the right

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.

(2002/C 147 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Commission relations with the ERT

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) is an important interest group in the Union.

Does the Commission have any idea how often various Members of the Commission took part in official
meetings with the ERT during 2001?