CJEU - C‑258/23 to C‑260/23 - Imagens Médicas Integradas
CJEU considers lawfulness of seizing employee emails during competition investigations.
Summary
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is examining whether national competition authorities can seize employee emails without prior judicial authorization during investigations into anti-competitive practices. The Advocate General's opinion suggests this is permissible under Article 7 and Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, provided there's a strict legal framework and safeguards against abuse, even if personal data is involved.
Full text
Help CJEU - C‑258/23 to C‑260/23 - Imagens Médicas Integradas: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 09:04, 16 April 2026 view sourceSfl (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators487 editsm ← Older edit Latest revision as of 09:11, 23 July 2026 view source Bms (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators216 editsTag: Visual edit (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)Line 70: Line 70: The competition court decided to stay proceedings and refer questions to the CJEU concerning the lawfulness of the seizure of emails of employees during investigations carried out by the competition authority. The competition court referred the following questions: The competition court decided to stay proceedings and refer questions to the CJEU concerning the lawfulness of the seizure of emails of employees during investigations carried out by the competition authority. The competition court referred the following questions: # Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by email, constitute “correspondence” for the purposes of Article 7 of the [Charter]?# Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by email, constitute “correspondence” for the purposes of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 7 CFR]? # Does Article 7 of the [Charter] preclude business records arising from email communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 [EC]) [or, in Case C 260/23, Article 102 TFEU (ex article 82 [EC])]?# Does [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 7 CFR] preclude business records arising from email communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/oj/eng Article 101 TFEU] (ex Article 81 [EC]) [or, in Case C 260/23, [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/oj/eng Article 102 TFEU] (ex article 82 [EC])]? # Does Article 7 of the [Charter] preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities?’# Does [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 7 CFR] preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities?’ In his initial opinion, the AG stated that Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU) must be interpreted as not precluding national law from allowing the national competition authority to seize (among other information) employees’ emails related to the investigation without prior judicial authorisation. However, there must be a strict legal framework for the authority’s powers, with adequate and effective safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness. In his initial opinion, the AG stated that [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR)] must be interpreted as not precluding national law from allowing the national competition authority to seize (among other information) employees’ emails related to the investigation without prior judicial authorisation. However, there must be a strict legal framework for the authority’s powers, with adequate and effective safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness. The Court requested the AG to issue a supplementary opinion following the judgment in [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0548 Landeck (C-548/21)], in which the CJEU assessed the Law Enforcement Directive in relation with Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the CFREU. The AG was asked to provide his opinion on how Article 8 CFREU applies, in particular when the records and emails contain personal data.The Court requested the AG to issue a supplementary opinion following the judgement in [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0548 Landeck (C-548/21)], in which the CJEU assessed the Law Enforcement Directive in relation with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Articles 7], [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng 8] and [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng 52(1) CFR]. The AG was asked to provide his opinion on how [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 8 CFR] applies, in particular when the records and emails contain personal data. === Advocate General Opinion ====== Advocate General Opinion === The AG first noted that Article 8 CFREU is closely related to Article 7 CFREU, and the two rights may be difficult to distinguish clearly. The AG also noted that the seizure of emails by a national competition authority limits the right to data protection under Article 8 CFREU if said emails contain personal data under [[Article 4 GDPR#1|Article 4(1) GDPR]]. The AG first noted that [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 8 CFR] is closely related to [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 7 CFR], and the two rights may be difficult to distinguish clearly. The AG also noted that the seizure of emails by a national competition authority limits the right to data protection under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 8 CFR] if said emails contain personal data under [[Article 4 GDPR#1|Article 4(1) GDPR]]. Article 8 CFREU, however, is not absolute, and may be limited in accordance with Article 52(1) CFREU. For example, the national competition authority may process personal data in the emails under [[Article 6 GDPR#1e|Article 6(1)(e) GDPR]] in conjunction with [[Article 6 GDPR#3|Article 6(3) GDPR]]; since the seizure was permitted under national law, the AG concluded that the processing meets the first requirement of Article 52(1) CFREU (provided by law). [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 8 CFR], however, is not absolute, and may be limited in accordance with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 52(1) CFR]. For example, the national competition authority may process personal data in the emails under [[Article 6 GDPR#1e|Article 6(1)(e) GDPR]] in conjunction with [[Article 6 GDPR#3|Article 6(3) GDPR]]; since the seizure was permitted under national law, the AG concluded that the processing meets the first requirement of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng Article 52(1) CFR] (provided by law). The AG then noted that the competition authority did not collect an unlimited amount of data during its investigations, meaning the essence of Article 8 CFREU was not affected. According to the AG, the seizure of emails was the least restrictive way of pursuing the objective of identifying anticompetitive practices. This case is different to that of ''Landeck'', as it did not involve full access to individuals' mobile phone data. In principle, the emails exchanged between employees is of business nature, and therefore the processing is proportionate. The AG th