Case C-473/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte (Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 10 and 11 — Obligation to inform — Article 13(1)(d) and (g) — Exceptions — Scope of exceptions — Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 15(1))
Date: 2013-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, fundamental rights, national implementing measure, personal data, selective dissemination of information








C_2014009EN.01001302.xml










11.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/13





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte
(Case C-473/12) (1)

(Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 10 and 11 - Obligation to inform - Article 13(1)(d) and (g) - Exceptions - Scope of exceptions - Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1))
2014/C 9/19
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI)

Defendants: Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

Intervening parties: Union professionnelle nationale des détectives privés de Belgique (UPNDP), Association professionnelle des inspecteurs et experts d’assurances ASBL (APIEA), Conseil des ministres

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 11(1) and 13(1)(d) and (g) 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) and of Article 6(3) TEU — Whether there is full harmonisation — Option for a Member State to provide for a restriction of, or an exception to, the obligation to inform the person concerned immediately — Scope of the exception to that obligation — Whether the professional activities of private detectives are included — If not, whether Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC is compatible with Article 6(3) TEU, more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(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 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States have no obligation, but have the option, to transpose into their national law one or more of the exceptions which it lays down to the obligation to inform data subjects of the processing of their personal data.
The activity of a private detective acting for a professional body in order to investigate breaches of ethics of a regulated profession, in this case that of estate agent, is covered by the exception in Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 95/46.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.