Tele2 (Netherlands) BV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM).
Date: 2017-03-15
26


That lack of distinction is compatible with the objective pursued by the Universal Service Directive, which, according to Article 1(1) thereof, seeks, in particular, to ensure the availability, throughout the European Union, of good quality publicly available services through effective competition and choice and to deal with circumstances in which the needs of end-users are not satisfactorily met by the market, and with the specific objective of Article 25(2) of the Universal Service Directive which seeks, in particular, to ensure compliance with the universal service obligation laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2011, Deutsche Telekom, C‑543/09, EU:C:2011:279, paragraph 35).
35


For the purposes of reaching that conclusion, the Court held, in the light of recital 39 and of the wording of Article 12(2) and (3) of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications, that, where a subscriber has been informed by the undertaking which assigned him a telephone number of the possibility that his personal data may be passed to a third-party undertaking, with a view to being published in a public directory, and where he has consented to the publication of those data in such a directory, renewed consent is not needed from the subscriber for the passing of those same data to another undertaking which intends to publish a printed or electronic public directory, or to make such directories available for consultation through directory enquiry services, if it is guaranteed that the data in question will not be used for purposes other than those for which the data were collected with a view to their first publication. The consent given under Article 12(2) of that directive, by a subscriber who has been duly informed, to the publication of his personal data in a public directory relates to the purpose of that publication and thus extends to any subsequent processing of those data by third-party undertakings active in the market for publicly available directory enquiry services and directories, provided that such processing pursues that same purpose. The Court has stated in that regard that the wording of Article 12(2) of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications does not support the inference that the subscriber has a selective right to decide in favour of certain providers of publicly available directory enquiry services and directories (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2011, Deutsche Telekom, C‑543/09, EU:C:2011:279, paragraphs 62 to 65).
36


The Court has added that, where a subscriber has consented to the passing of his personal data to a given undertaking with a view to their publication in a public directory of that undertaking, the passing of the same data to another undertaking intending to publish a public directory without renewed consent having been obtained from that subscriber is not capable of substantively impairing the right to protection of personal data, as recognised by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2011, Deutsche Telekom, C‑543/09, EU:C:2011:279, paragraph 66).