[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fcv4TIKH9AcbGABFn7gas51e1rZhpku4ZfeutPo1rPqA":3},{"article":4,"iocs":48},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":31,"category":32,"article_tags":36},"8d33c39e-aef7-48e0-a25f-3ae1e01f0d42","CJEU - C-439\u002F19 - Latvijas Republikas Saeima (Penalty points)","cjeu-c-439-19-latvijas-republikas-saeima-penalty-points-41e566","Standardized names and links ← Older revision Revision as of 14:17, 15 July 2026 Line 18: Line 18: |EU_Law_Name_1=TFEU, Article 16 |EU_Law_Name_1=TFEU, Article 16 |EU_Law_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT |EU_Law_Link_1=http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Ftreaty\u002Ftfeu_2012\u002Foj |EU_Law_Name_2=Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8 |EU_Law_Name_2=Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8 |EU_Law_Link_2=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT |EU_Law_Link_2=http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Ftreaty\u002Fchar_2012\u002Foj |EU_Law_Name_3=Directive 95\u002F46\u002FEC, Article 3(2) |EU_Law_Name_3=Directive 95\u002F46\u002FEC, Article 3(2) |EU_Law_Link_3=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT |EU_Law_Link_3=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex:31995L0046 |EU_Law_Name_4=Directive (EU) 2016\u002F680, Recital 13 |EU_Law_Name_4=Law Enforcement Directive (EU) 2016\u002F680, Recital 13 |EU_Law_Link_4=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT |EU_Law_Link_4=http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Fdir\u002F2016\u002F680\u002Foj |National_Law_Name_1=Latvia Road Traffic Law |National_Law_Name_1=Latvia Road Traffic Law","The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that a Latvian law allowing public disclosure of penalty points for road traffic offenses violates data protection rights. The court found that such disclosure, even for road safety purposes, goes beyond what is necessary and infringes upon the right to data protection, which takes precedence over public access to information or freedom of information rights in this context.","CJEU rules Latvian law allowing public disclosure of penalty points violates data protection rights.","Help CJEU - C-439\u002F19 - Latvijas Republikas Saeima (Penalty points): Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 19:11, 18 October 2024 view sourceManTechnologist (talk | contribs)858 editsm ← Older edit Latest revision as of 14:17, 15 July 2026 view source Sfl (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators442 editsm Tag: Visual edit Line 18: Line 18: |EU_Law_Name_1=TFEU, Article 16|EU_Law_Name_1=TFEU, Article 16 |EU_Law_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT|EU_Law_Link_1=http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Ftreaty\u002Ftfeu_2012\u002Foj |EU_Law_Name_2=Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8|EU_Law_Name_2=Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8 |EU_Law_Link_2=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT|EU_Law_Link_2=http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Ftreaty\u002Fchar_2012\u002Foj |EU_Law_Name_3=Directive 95\u002F46\u002FEC, Article 3(2)|EU_Law_Name_3=Directive 95\u002F46\u002FEC, Article 3(2) |EU_Law_Link_3=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT|EU_Law_Link_3=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex:31995L0046 |EU_Law_Name_4=Directive (EU) 2016\u002F680, Recital 13|EU_Law_Name_4=Law Enforcement Directive (EU) 2016\u002F680, Recital 13 |EU_Law_Link_4=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT|EU_Law_Link_4=http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Fdir\u002F2016\u002F680\u002Foj |National_Law_Name_1=Latvia Road Traffic Law|National_Law_Name_1=Latvia Road Traffic Law Latest revision as of 14:17, 15 July 2026 CJEU - C-439\u002F19 Latvijas Republikas Saeima (Penalty points) Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 2(2)(a) GDPR Article 2(2)(b) GDPR Article 10 GDPR TFEU, Article 16Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8Directive 95\u002F46\u002FEC, Article 3(2)Law Enforcement Directive (EU) 2016\u002F680, Recital 13Latvia Road Traffic Law Decided: 22.06.2021 Parties: B Parliament of the Republic of Latvia (Latvijas Republikas Saeima) Case Number\u002FName: C-439\u002F19 Latvijas Republikas Saeima (Penalty points) European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2021:504 Reference from: Language: 24 EU Languages Original Source: Judgement Initial Contributor: Panayotis Yannakas The CJEU held that the administrative body handling the national register of vehicles and drivers should not publicly disclose penalty points imposed for road traffic offences. The Latvian law permitting such disclosure goes beyond what is necessary to improve road safety, and neither the right of public access to official documents nor the right to freedom of information are sufficient to justify a derogation from the right to data protection. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Dispute 1.3 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources English Summary Facts An individual lodged a constitutional complaint reference on the national Law on Road Traffic is consistent with the fundamental right to respect for private life. The individual’s legal interest was grounded to the imposition of penalty points after some road traffic offences. These points were entered in the national register of vehicles and drivers. Moreover, any company and any third person may obtain information relating to penalty points imposed on another person, either by enquiring directly at the CSDD or by using the services provided by commercial re-users. The relative Article 14(1)(2) of national law was stated that “Information relating […] to fines for the commission of road traffic offences which have been imposed on a person […] shall be regarded as information in the public domain”. Latvian Parliament intended to improve road safety through each driver who infringes traffic regulations, particularly those disregarding them systematically, be openly identified. The only requirement for disclosure of the information, which contained in the national register of vehicles and their drivers, was subject to the condition that the information seeker must provide the national identification number of the drivers about whom they wish to enquire. The CSDD handles the National Register, and they insisted that they transfer the legal ownership of the transmitted data under no circumstances. So, the re-users should use these data only to deduce the seriousness and frequency of those offences and ascertain whether a given person has committed road traffic offences. Since penalty points were classified as public data, may be re-used for commercial or non-commercial purposes other than the initial purpose for which the information was collected. However, article 14(1)(2) of the Road Traffic National Act does not impose limits on the re-use of these data relating to penalty points. Under the contracts in which CSDD concludes with commercial re-users, the acquirer affirms that it will use the information obtained in accordance with the purposes indicated in the contract and in compliance with the legislation in force. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out if any possible processing is inappropriate or disproportionate. It should be well-known to everyone that the GDPR provides enhanced protection to sensitive data. Article 10 of the GDPR refers to these data collections which are capable to give rise to social disapproval. The at-issue grant of data access is liable to stigmatise the data subject, and thereby, it is possible to constitute a serious interference with his or her private or professional life. The referring national Court also asked CJEU whether the provisions of the GDPR must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which obliges the public body responsible for the register to disclose those data to any person who requests them, without that person having to establish a specific interest in obtaining the data. Dispute Since information relating to penalty points can be communicated upon request and transmitted for re-use to several companies, an individual filed a constitutional complaint challenging the conformity of the Act on Road Traffic with the right to privacy set out in the Latvian Constitution. Because the Latvian Parliament adopted the National Law on Road Traffic, that institution participated in the proceedings. The CSDD, which processes the data at issue, was also heard. In addition, the National Data Protection Authority, Latvia) was also invited to give their opinion as amici curiae before the referring Court. The Latvian Parliament explained that, in practice, disclosure of the information contained in the national register of vehicles and their drivers is subject to the condition that the person requesting the information must provide the national identification number of the driver about whom he or she wishes to enquire. Moreover, the CSDD pointed out that the Law on Road Traffic does not impose limits on either public access to or re-use of data relating to penalty points. As regards that they do not provide the legal transfer of the data; re-users must ensure by themselves that the information transmitted does not exceed the initial purpose for which the information was collected. However, the National Data Protection Authority expressed its doubts about whether the Law on Road Traffic is consistent with the Latvian Constitution, which lays down the right to respect for private life. In its view, the importance and the objective of the processing carried out on the basis of the provision at issue in the main proceedings are not clearly established, and it cannot, therefore, be ruled out that processing is inappropriate or disproportionate. The National Parliament considers that the provision at issue is lawful because it is justified by the objective of improving road safety, which requires that traffic offenders be openly identified and that drivers be deterred from committing offences. Also, the Right of Access to Information, which was directly included in the National Constitution","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=CJEU_-_C-439\u002F19_-_Latvijas_Republikas_Saeima_(Penalty_points)&diff=52237&oldid=43656","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F8\u002F87\u002FCjeulogo.png","2026-07-15T14:17:33+00:00","2026-07-15T16:00:19.698673+00:00",7,[18,21,23,25,27,29],{"name":19,"type":20},"GDPR","product",{"name":22,"type":20},"Directive 95\u002F46\u002FEC",{"name":24,"type":20},"Law Enforcement Directive (EU) 2016\u002F680",{"name":26,"type":20},"Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union",{"name":28,"type":20},"TFEU",{"name":30,"type":20},"Latvia Road Traffic Law","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":31,"icon":33,"name":34,"slug":35},null,"Policy","policy",[37,41,46],{"category":38},{"id":39,"icon":33,"name":19,"slug":40},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","gdpr",{"category":42},{"id":43,"icon":33,"name":44,"slug":45},"614132b8-5837-4952-b8b5-c6c9a32a1d85","Privacy","privacy",{"category":47},{"id":31,"icon":33,"name":34,"slug":35},[]]