GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF SHIPS WASTE OIL COLLECTOR B.V. AND OTHERS
v. THE NETHERLANDS
(Application no. 2799/16 and 3 others –
see appended list)
 
JUDGMENT
Art 8 • Correspondence • Transmission and use in competition law proceedings of data lawfully obtained through telephone tapping in criminal investigations • Transmission of intercept data for further use by another law-enforcement authority constituted a separate interference with Art 8 rights, distinct from original interception • Minimum safeguards set out by the Court for communicating intercept data to another law-enforcement authority to avoid arbitrariness and abuse • Transmissions to be limited to material collected in a Convention-compliant manner • Breadth of margin of appreciation depended on the content and nature of the data at issue and not on applicant’s physical or legal nature or status • Minimum safeguards under Art 8 in principle the same for natural and legal persons • Impugned data transmission had legal basis in domestic law which fulfilled “foreseeability” requirements • Transmission authorisations by a non-judicial authority compatible with Art 8 • Art 8 not to be construed as guaranteeing prior notification of the transmission of intercept material or, by implication, to participate in any review prior to the transmission • In case-circumstances, absence of written reasoning in transmission authorisations and of prior notice of the transmissions compensated for by the effective ex-post facto judicial review conducting a de novo assessment and capable of affording the applicant companies appropriate redress • Redress in the form of the destruction of transmitted data or monetary compensation not necessarily required for a remedy concerning intercept data transmission • Restrictions on the use of such data might afford sufficient redress • Adequate safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse • Applicant companies afforded opportunity to effectively contest the transmissions • Adequate balancing exercise between interests at stake • Relevant and sufficient reasons justifying necessity and proportionality of interference for the purposes of enforcement of competition law
Art 13 (+ Art 8) • Effective remedy
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
1 April 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V., Burando Holding B.V. and Port Invest B.V. v. the Netherlands (nos. 2799/16, 3124/16 and 3205/16 – “the first group of applicant companies”)
1. Criminal proceedings and data transmission
2. Administrative proceedings
(a) The decision by the NMA to impose fines and the administrative review proceedings
(b) Appeal proceedings before the Rotterdam Regional Court
(c) Further appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court for Trade and Industry
3. Subsequent developments
B. Janssen de Jong Groep B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands ..... (no. 2800/16)
1. Criminal proceedings and data transmission
2. Civil proceedings
3. Administrative proceedings
(a) The decision by the NMA to impose fines and the administrative review proceedings
(b) Appeal proceedings before the Rotterdam Regional Court
(c) Further appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court for Trade and Industry
4. Subsequent developments
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
I. DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
B. The Judicial and Criminal Data Act
1. Relevant provisions
2. Legislative history
3. WJSG Instructions
4. Relevant domestic case-law
5. The Agreement between the Public Prosecution Service and the NMA
C. The Special Investigative Services Act
D. The Police Act
E. The Competition Act
F. The General Administrative Law Act
G. The Code of Criminal Procedure
H. The Decree on the retention and destruction of non-attached  documents
I. The Civil Code
J. The Code of Civil Procedure
II. EUROPEAN UNION LAW
A. The ePrivacy Directive
B. The EIO Directive
C. Relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union  (CJEU)
III. COMPARATIVE LAW MATERIAL
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE ... CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgments
B. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicant companies
(a) The legal basis for the interference and the “foreseeability” of the domestic law
(b) Safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse
(c) Legitimate aim and proportionality of the interference
2. The Government
(a) Existence of an interference
(b) The legal basis for the interference and the “foreseeability” of the domestic law
(c) Safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse
(d) Legitimate aim and proportionality of the interference
3. The third party
C. The Court’s assessment
1. Existence of an interference and its scope
2. Justification for the interference
(a) Applicable general principles
(i) Lawfulness and necessity in a democratic society
(ii) The level of protection for legal persons and the margin of appreciation
(b) Application to the present case
(i) Preliminary considerations
(ii) Whether the interference was in accordance with the law
(α) Whether there was a legal basis in Dutch law
(β) Quality of the law
(iii) Whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim
(iv) Whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

Outcome for Article 13: no_violation