Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-126/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Lyon): Ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie v GEMO SA (State aid — System of financing a public carcass disposal service by a meat purchase tax — Interpretation of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid system, interpretation of the law, meat, purchase, tax system

C 7/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

the Court, composed of: P.

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),
Jann,
President of
the First Chamber, acting for the President,
C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
teur), J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and S. von Bahr, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 2003, in
which it has ruled:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The act of referring, on an internet page, to various persons and
identifying them by name or by other means, for instance by
giving their telephone number or information regarding their
working conditions and hobbies, constitutes ‘the processing of
personal data wholly or partly by automatic means’ within the
meaning of Article 3(1) 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.

Such processing of personal data is not covered by any of the
exceptions in Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46.

Reference to the fact that an individual has injured her foot and
is on half-time on medical grounds constitutes personal data
concerning health within the meaning of Article 8(1) of
Directive 95/46.

There is no ‘transfer [of data] to a third country’ within the
meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46 where an individual
in a Member State loads personal data onto an internet page
which is stored on an internet site on which the page can be
consulted and which is hosted by a natural or legal person who
is established in that State or in another Member State, thereby
making those data accessible to anyone who connects to the
internet, including people in a third country.

The provisions of Directive 95/46 do not, in themselves, bring
about a restriction which conflicts with the general principles of
freedom of expression or other freedoms and rights, which are
applicable within the European Union and are enshrined inter
alia in Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome
is for the national authorities
on 4 November 1950. It
and courts responsible for applying the national
legislation
implementing Directive 95/46 to ensure a fair balance between
the rights and interests in question, including the fundamental
rights protected by the Community legal order.

6. Measures taken by the Member States to ensure the protection
of personal data must be consistent both with the provisions of
Directive 95/46 and with its objective of maintaining a balance
between freedom of movement of personal data and the
protection of private life. However, nothing prevents a Member
legislation
State from extending the scope of the national

implementing the provisions of Directive 95/46 to areas not
included in the scope thereof provided that no other provision of
Community law precludes it.

(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 20 November 2003

in Case C-126/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon): Ministre de
l’économie, des finances et de l’industrie v GEMO SA (1)

(State aid — System of financing a public carcass disposal
service by a meat purchase tax — Interpretation of Article 92
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))

(2004/C 7/05)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-126/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ministre de l’économie, des finances et de
l’industrie and GEMO SA, on the interpretation of Article 92
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC), the
Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting
as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November
2003, in which it has ruled:

Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1)
EC), must be interpreted as meaning that a system such as that
at
issue in the main proceedings, which provides farmers and
slaughterhouses with the free collection and disposal of animal
carcasses and slaughterhouse waste, must be classified as State aid.

(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.