Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00) v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data transmission, income, interpretation of the law, personal data, protection of privacy

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/3

relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct
insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as
amended by Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June
1988 (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber,
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

4.

those Treaty provisions. It is for the referring court to determine
whether that scheme is in fact justified by social policy objectives
and to examine, in particular, whether the cover provided by
that compulsory insurance scheme is proportionate to those
objectives.

The term ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 92 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) does not
cover a body such as the Organismos Ellenikon Georgikon
Asfaliseon (ELGA)
the
compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks.

its activities under

in respect of

1.

2.

3.

The EC Treaty provisions on the common agricultural policy
and Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 Octo-
ber 1975 on the common organisation of the market in
poultrymeat, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1235/89 of 3 May 1989, do not preclude a quasi-fiscal
charge established by a Member State, such as a special
insurance contribution levied on sales and purchases of domestic
agricultural products which fall within the common organis-
ation for the market in poultrymeat, the revenue from which is
used to fund a public body responsible for the prevention of,
and compensation for, damage caused to agricultural holdings
by natural risks in that State.

Those Treaty provisions and Regulation No 2777/75, as
amended by Regulation No 1235/89, do preclude such a
quasi-fiscal charge however where it is such as to undermine the
aims and objects of the common organisation of the market in
question and, in particular, where it does in fact restrict intra-
Community trade.

It is for the national court to decide whether the contribution
does in fact have that effect.

Community law on the free movement of goods, in particular
Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 23 EC and 25 EC), Article 16 of the EC Treaty
(repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) and Article 95 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC), does not
preclude a contribution such as that referred to in paragraph 1
of the operative part of the present judgment.

(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 May 2003

in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Refer-
ence for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgericht-
shof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00)
v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between
Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/
01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (1)

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private
life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of
bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)

(2003/C 171/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

Benefits such as those provided by the Organismos Ellenikon
Georgikon Asfaliseon (ELGA) under the compulsory insurance
scheme against natural risks do not fall within the scope of
either Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
EC) or First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business
of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by
Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988.

Such a compulsory insurance scheme may, however, constitute
a restriction on the freedom of insurance companies established
in other Member States, who wish to offer services covering
such risks in Greece, to provide services, within the meaning of

In Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01: References
to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verfassungsgerichts-
hof (C-465/00) and the Oberster Gerichtshof (C-138/01 and
C-139/01) (Austria) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings
pending before those courts between Rechnungshof (C-465/
00) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, Wirtschaftskammer Stei-
ermark, Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, Land Niederösterre-
ich, Österreichische Nationalbank, Stadt Wiener Neustadt,
and
Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG,
between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01),
Joseph Lauermann
(C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, on the interpret-
ation 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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,

C 171/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which it has
ruled:

1. Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) 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 do not
preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, provided that it is shown that the wide disclosure
not merely of the amounts of the annual income above a certain
threshold of persons employed by the bodies subject to control
by the Rechnungshof but also of the names of the recipients of
that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of
proper management of public funds pursued by the legislature,
that being for the national courts to ascertain.

2. Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly
applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before
the national courts to oust the application of rules of national
law which are contrary to those provisions.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001 and OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.

in the proceedings pending before that court between Ravil
SARL og Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA, on the interpret-
ation of Article 29 EC, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
and C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. As regards the period prior to the entry into force of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
registration of geographical
indications and designations of
origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Article 29 EC must be
interpreted as not precluding a convention concluded between
two Member States A and B, such as the Convention between
the French Republic and the Italian Republic on the protection
of designations of origin, indications of provenance and names
of certain products, signed in Rome on 28 April 1964, from
making applicable in Member State A national legislation of
Member State B, such as that referred to by the national court,
under which the designation of origin of a cheese, protected in
Member State B, is reserved, for cheese marketed in grated
form, to cheese grated and packaged in the region of production.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2.

of 20 May 2003

in Case C-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL,
Biraghi SpA (1)

(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — ‘Grana
Padano’ freshly grated — Specification — Convention
between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is
grated and packaged in the region of production —
Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the
condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal
certainty— Publicity)

(2003/C 171/04)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
the protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
condition that operations such as the grating and packaging of
the product take place in the region of production, where such a
condition is laid down in the specification.

3. Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Grana
Padano’ for cheese marketed in grated form is made subject to
the condition that grating and packaging operations be carried
out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure
having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports
within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as
justified, and hence compatible with that provision.

In Case C-469/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling

4. However, the condition in question may not be relied on against
economic operators, as it was not brought to their knowledge
by adequate publicity in Community legislation. Nevertheless,
the principle of legal certainty does not preclude that condition