Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Germany / Higher Administrative Court North Rhine-Westphalia / 13 B 238/17

Bavarian internet service provider (ISP) v Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur)
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Higher Administrative Court North Rhine-Westphalia
Type
Decision
Decision date
22/06/2017
ECLI (European case law identifier)
DE:OVGNRW:2017:0622.13B238.17.00

Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie

Title II: Freedoms

Article 7 - Respect for private and family life

Title II: Freedoms

Article 8 - Protection of personal data

Title II: Freedoms

Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information

Title II: Freedoms

Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business

Title VII: General provisions

Article 52 - Scope and interpretation

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Germany / Higher Administrative Court North Rhine-Westphalia / 13 B 238/17

    Key facts of the case: 

    An internet serive provider based in Munich had requested the Administrative Court Cologne (Verwaltungsgericht Köln) to issue an interim injunction (while waiting for the decision on the legal complaint that was submitted simultaneously) against the legal obligation of the ISP to retain telecommunication data according to section 113a and 113b of the Telecommunication Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz) that was adopted in 2015 and is to be implemented since 1 July 2017. After the reqest was rejected by the Administrative Court on 25 January 2017, arguing that the no rights of the ISP itself were violated, the ISP lodged a complaint against this decision with the Higher Administrative Court. The ISP argued that the data retention regime violates national constitutional law and EU law, in particular in the light of the recent EJC decision Tele2 Sverige and Watson, as it provides for the blanket retention of telecommunication data from almost all customers. This would violate the privacy and data protection rights of the ISP as well as its freedom to conduct business because of the significant costs for implementing the data retention regime.

    Outcome of the case: 

    Arguing that the relevant provisions of the Telecommunication Act for the blanket retention of telecommunication data violate articles 7, 8, 11 and 52 (1) of the Charter, the Higher Administrative Court decided that the obligation to implement data retention is lacking a legal basis which is in line with EU law. Thus, an infringement of the freedom to conduct business (article 16 of the Charter) is not justified. Consequently, the court ruled that the ISP is not obliged to retain telecommunication data until the Administrative Court Cologne decides the legal complaint that was lodged by the ISP along with the request for issuing an interim injunction.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    After essential legal questions on the scope and on the requirements for substantive law of the Union law that is relevant for the present case have been clarified by the European Court of Justice’s decision of 21 December 2016 in the connected cases “Tele2 Sverige AB and Watson” (cf. ECJ, Decision of 21 December 2016 – C-203/15 and C-698/15 „Tele2 Sverige AB and Watson“) it is evident that the obligation of telecommunication service providers to store telecommunication metadata provided for by section 113a (1) read in conjunction with section 113b of the Telecommunication Act is incompatible with article 15 (1) of the Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 July 2002 on the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communication – Data Protection Directive for Electronic Communication – (Offical Journal L 201, p. 37) which was amended the last time by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on 25 November 2009 (Official Journal L 337, p. 11) read in the light of fundamental rights enshrined in articles 7, 8 and 11 as well as article 52 (1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This results in any case from the fact that the retention obligation does not require a link between the retained data and the purpose of combating serious crimes respectively the prevention of significant theats for public security which is the aim of the law but rather indiscriminately targets almost all users of telecommunication devices which fall under section 113b of the Telecommunication Act without limitation of persons, time or region. (para 34-36)

    The infringement of the plaintiff’s freedom to conduct business by data retention and the related technical and financial costs as provided for by section 113a (1) read in conjunction with section 113b (1) and (3) of the Telecommunication Act is not justified from the perspective of Union law because it is lacking a legal basis which is compatible with article 15 (1) of the Directive 2002/58/EC in the light of the fundamental rights of articles 7, 8, 11 and 52 (1) of the Charter. At the same moment, the plaintiff’s right deriving from article 16 is violated for this reason. (para 134)

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Nach einer Klärung grundsätzlicher Rechtsfragen zur Reichweite und zu den materiellrechtlichen Anforderungen des im vorliegenden Zusammenhang maßgeblichen Unionsrechts durch das Urteil des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union vom 21. Dezember 2016 in den verbundenen Rechtssachen „Tele2 Sverige AB und Watson“, vgl. EuGH, Urteil vom 21. Dezember 2016 – C-203/15 und C-698/15 – „Tele2 Sverige AB und Watson“, steht fest, dass die durch § 113a Abs. 1 TKG i.V.m. § 113b TKG für die Erbringer öffentlich zugänglicher Telekommunikationsdienste für Endnutzer geregelte Pflicht zur Speicherung von Telekommunikationsverkehrsdaten mit Art. 15 Abs. 1 der Richtlinie 2002/58/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 12. Juli 2002 über die Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten und den Schutz der Privatsphäre in der elektronischen Kommunikation – Datenschutzrichtlinie für elektronische Kommunikation – (ABl. L 201, S. 37) zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 2009/136/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 25. November 2009 (ABl. L 337 S. 11) im Lichte der Grundrechte aus Art. 7, 8 und 11 sowie Artikel 52 Abs. 1 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union unvereinbar ist. Dies folgt jedenfalls daraus, dass die Speicherpflicht keinen Zusammenhang zwischen den auf Vorrat zu speichernden Daten und dem durch das Gesetz verfolgten Zweck der Bekämpfung schwerer Straftaten bzw. der Abwehr schwerwiegender Gefahren für die öffentliche Sicherheit verlangt, sondern unterschiedslos ohne jede personelle, zeitliche oder geographische Begrenzung nahezu sämtliche Nutzer der von § 113b TKG erfassten Telekommunikationsmittel erfasst. (Rn. 34-36)

    Der in der Speicherpflicht sowie dem damit einhergehenden technischen und finanziellen Aufwand liegende Eingriff in die unternehmerische Freiheit der Antragstellerin ist hiernach jedenfalls aus unionsrechtlicher Hinsicht nicht durch die Regelung des § 113a Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 113b Abs. 1 und 3 TKG als dem Grunde nach gerechtfertigt anzusehen, weil es insoweit an einer mit Art. 15 Abs. 1 der Richtlinie 2002/58/EG im Licht der Grundrechte aus Art. 7, 8, 11 und Art. 52 Abs. 1 der Charta zu vereinbarenden gesetzlichen Grundlage fehlt. Zugleich ist die Antragstellerin damit in ihrem Recht aus Art. 16 der Charta verletzt. (Rn. 134)