CELEX: 62016CA0013
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-13/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 7(f) — Personal data — Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data — Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ — Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim — Obligation on the controller to grant such a request — No such obligation)

3.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/11
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’
   (Case C-13/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 7(f) - Personal data - Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data - Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ - Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim - Obligation on the controller to grant such a request - No such obligation))
   (2017/C 213/10)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākās tiesas
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde
   
      Defendant: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 7(f) 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 not imposing the obligation to disclose personal data to a third party in order to enable him to bring an action for damages before a civil court for harm caused by the person concerned by the protection of that data. However, Article 7(f) of that directive does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law.
   
      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.