Information Technology Law Reports - Volume 18 - Issue 4
This edition of Information Technology Law Reports contains two cases. In the first, Puškár v Finance Office of the Slovak Republic, the Court of Justice of the European
Union (‘CJEU’) handed down its preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of ‘a task carried out in the public interest’ as a legitimate basis for processing personal data under Article 7(e) of the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). The CJEU held that such tasks did not preclude tax authorities from processing personal data for the purpose of collecting tax and combatting tax fraud, provided that such tasks were in the public interest and that the drawing up of the Contested List and including names on it must be adequate and necessary to achieve the stated objectives; and, lastly, that all of the conditions for the lawfulness of processing, as set out in the Directive, must be satisfied. The case is important as a reminder that there is a need to ensure that any processing of personal data is necessary and proportionate to achieve the stated purpose, notwithstanding that it is in the public interest.
In the second case, (1) Al-Ko Kober Limited (2) Paul Jones v Balvinder Sambhi (t/a Torquebars), the High Court was concerned with section 10 notices under the Data Protection Act 1998. The section 10(1) notice required the defendant to stop publishing words and images about the claimant. The defendant refused on the grounds that the YouTube videos only used personal data that was already in the public domain. The court concluded that there was no public domain exception. Relief was granted in the form of a widely drawn perpetual injunction. This case illustrates how section 10 notices can be used to good effect.
Editor, Information Technology Law Reports
CASES IN THIS ISSUE