Businesses that process IP addresses should take note, as their business activities could be adversely affected by EU data protection law if the CJEU follows the Advocate General’s Opinion." IP addresses as personal data - the CJEU's judgment in C-582/14 Breyer. Marcin Kotula, Legal Officer at the European Commission The views expressed are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission Background In the Breyer case the CJEU was asked by the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) if dynamic IP addresses are personal data within the meaning of the EU Data Protection Directive and to what extent they can be stored and processed to ensure the general operability of websites. Mr Breyer, the applicant in this case, is a German politician and privacy activist. He visited various websites of the German federal institutions. One of the aims of the storage of those data is to prevent cyberattacks and enable prosecution of those who committed them.
Mr Breyer did not agree with the storage of his IP address after the consultation of the websites and in the proceedings before the German court he requested the German government to cease this practice. The CJEU's analysis. La Cour de cassation tranche, elle aussi, sur l’adresse IP… et c’est lourd de conséquences. Les Faits Cass. Civ. 1, 3 novembre 2016, n°15-22.595 Trois sociétés d’un même groupe ont constaté la connexion sur leur réseau informatique interne d’ordinateurs extérieurs au groupe. Cette connexion était effectuée au moyen de codes d’accès réservé aux administrateurs d’un site internet du groupe. Souhaitant identifier les personnes s’étant connectées à leur réseau, les trois sociétés ont obtenu une ordonnance en référé enjoignant aux fournisseurs d’accès internet de révéler l’identité des titulaires des adresses IP utilisées.
Une société concurrente du groupe a été identifiée comme l’auteur de ces connexions. Celle-ci, après s’être vu déboutée en appel, s’est pourvue en cassation invoquant l’illicéité de la mesure d’instruction prévue par l’ordonnance. Elle soutenait que la conservation, sous forme de fichiers, de ces adresses IP aurait dû faire l’objet d’une déclaration auprès de la CNIL. La décision Portée. L’actualité du droit des nouvelles technologies | Cour de cassation, 1ère ch. civ., arrêt du 3 novembre 2016. Lundi 07 novembre 2016 Cour de cassation, 1ère ch. civ., arrêt du 3 novembre 2016 Cabinet Peterson / Groupe Logisneuf et autres adresse IP - collecte - conservation - déclaration à la Cnil - données personnelles - loi informatique et libertés - ordonnance sur requête - rétractation - traitement automatisé de données à caractère personnel DECISIONPar ces motifs et sans qu’il y ait lieu de statuer sur les autres branches du troisième moyen : CASSE ET ANNULE, en toutes ses dispositions, l’arrêt rendu le 28 avril 2015, entre les parties, par la cour d’appel de Rennes ;Président : Mme BatutRapporteur : Mme Canas, conseiller référendaire rapporteurAvocat général : M.
Voir notre présentation En complément Maître Farge et Hazan est également intervenu(e) dans les 55 affaires suivante : Maître SCP Waquet est également intervenu(e) dans les 55 affaires suivante : Le magistrat Anne-Marie Batut est également intervenu(e) dans l'affaire suivante : Cour de cassation, 1ère ch. civ., arrêt du 3 novembre 2016. ECJ Ryneš ruling implies IP addresses are personal data in themselves - Hawktalk.
What better way to spend Data Protection Day (yesterday) than having a light-bulb moment; this is especially the case as, at my age, light bulbs tend to go in a different direction. My thoughts on IP addresses were triggered by the Ryneš ECJ case (domestic purposes exemption does not apply to surveillance of public places from a domestically installed CCTV). I think the Ryneš case strengthens the argument that an IP address is personal data in many instances. If I am correct, the UK’s Data Protection Act definition of "personal data" is definitely a deficient implementation of the personal data definition in Directive 95/46/EC, In addition, the right to object to marketing to search engines (and perhaps apps on smartphones) follows automatically.
Identifying the data subject In the ECJ judgments of Google Spain and Ryneš (see references), it was “deft” analysis of the Recitals of the Directive 95/46/EC that helped the Court come to its conclusions. The Ryneš Judgement Obviously if Mr. Mr. Documents. Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2014:2428 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of individuals — Processing of personal data — Concept of ‘in the course of a purely personal or household activity’) In Case C‑212/13, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic), made by decision of 20 March 2013, received at the Court on 19 April 2013, in the proceedings František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů, THE COURT (Fourth Chamber), composed of L.
Advocate General: N. Registrar: I. Having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 March 2014, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – Mr Ryneš, by M. . – Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů, by I. . – the Czech Government, by M. . – the Spanish Government, by A. . – the Italian Government, by G. . – the Austrian Government, by A. . – the Polish Government, by B. . – the Portuguese Government, by L. Documents. Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2011:771 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) (Information society – Copyright – Internet – ‘Peer-to-peer’ software – Internet service providers – Installation of a system for filtering electronic communications in order to prevent file sharing which infringes copyright – No general obligation to monitor information transmitted) In Case C‑70/10, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium), made by decision of 28 January 2010, received at the Court on 5 February 2010, in the proceedings Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), intervening parties: Belgian Entertainment Association Video ASBL (BEA Video), Belgian Entertainment Association Music ASBL (BEA Music), Internet Service Provider Association ASBL (ISPA), THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of K.
Advocate General: P. Registrar: C. After considering the observations submitted on behalf of: Judgment ‘1. 2. 3. Wp136 en. CJEU Judgement: Dynamic IP Addresses Constitute Personal Data - Data Protection Report. On October 19, 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided that the dynamic IP address of a website visitor is “personal data” under Directive 95/46EC (Data Protection Directive) in the hands of a website operator that has the means to compel an internet service provider to identify an individual based on the IP address. The case was brought by Patrick Breyer, a German Pirate Party politician. Breyer asserted that the German government’s storage of IP addresses of users visiting German government websites allowed the creation of user profiles and, therefore, was impermissible under Section 15 of the German Telemedia Act (TMA).
In relevant part, the TMA restricts telemedia service providers’ collection and use of users’ personal data except to the extent “necessary to enable and invoice the use of telemedia (data on usage)”. The CJEU sided with Breyer. Our Take Special thanks to Thorben Schlaefer for contributing to this post. Your dynamic IP address is now protected personal data under EU law. Europe's top court has ruled that dynamic IP addresses can constitute "personal data," just like static IP addresses, affording them some protection under EU law against being collected and stored by websites.
But the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) also said in its judgment on Wednesday that one legitimate reason for a site operator to store them is "to protect itself against cyberattacks. " The case was referred to the CJEU by the German Federal Court of Justice, after an action brought by German Pirate Party politician Patrick Breyer. He asked the courts to grant an injunction to prevent websites that he consults, run by federal German bodies, from collecting and storing his dynamic IP addresses. Breyer's fear is that doing so would allow the German authorities to build up a picture of his interests, according to the Austrian newspaper der Standard.
The case now goes back to the German Federal Court of Justice, which will make its judgment based on the CJEU's opinion. Osborne Clarke – an International Legal Practice: European Court rules website and app operators must treat dynamic IP addresses as personal data: what this means in practice. Dynamic IP addresses collected or processed by website and app operators will now need to be treated as personal data. We discuss the material implications of today's ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the case of Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-582/14).
Background The case arose when privacy activist Patrick Breyer sought an injunction against the German government to prevent it from storing dynamic IP addresses when certain German government websites were visited. A dynamic IP address is a string of numbers temporarily assigned by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to an individual computer or other device when it connects to the internet, and changed when a subsequent connection is made. The case was dismissed at first instance, but upheld in part on appeal.
Opinion of the Advocate General In the AG's view, Mr Breyer's ISP would be able to identify the account holder from the IP address. Ruling The ECJ on 19 October 2016 gave its judgment in the case. #ECJ rules a website can retain certain personal data of its visitors to protect against cyberattacks. Cp160112en. IP Address Is Personal Data: ECJ Advocate General. By Michael Scaturro May 12 — A European Court of Justice (ECJ) Advocate General proposed May 12 that Internet protocol (IP) addresses are personal data protected by European Union data protection laws, but companies like Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. can continue to collect such data to prevent attacks on their systems.
The ECJ must still rule on the matter, but the opinion written by Advocate General Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona would give courts in EU member states the right to weigh in on whether companies’ metadata collection practices align with applicable EU laws. “The fact that it might be difficult to combine different data sets to identify a user by his or her IP address doesn’t mean that this doesn’t present a danger to the user,” Sánchez-Bordona wrote. Bloomberg Law®, an integrated legal research and business intelligence solution, combines trusted news and analysis with cutting-edge technology to provide legal professionals tools to be proactive advisors. Complicated Issue. Detaillierte Angaben. Sammlung der Rechtsprechung Information nicht verfügbar Gegenstand Information nicht verfügbar Systematische Übersicht Nachweise zu Rechtsprechung oder Rechtsvorschriften Zitate in Gründen Tenor Schlussanträge Datum Datum der Einreichung des verfahrenseinleitenden Schriftstücks Datum der Schlussanträge Datum der Sitzung Verkündungsdatum Bezugsdaten Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt Eingang: ABl.
Parteien Breyer Schrifttum Analytische Verfahrensdaten Herkunft der zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegten Frage Bundesgerichtshof - Deutschland Gegenstand Rechtsangleichung Datenschutz Verfahren und Ergebnis Vorabentscheidungsersuchen Spruchkörper Berichterstatter Generalanwalt Campos Sánchez-Bordona Verfahrenssprache(n) Deutsch Sprache(n) der Schlussanträge Information nicht verfügbar. Daten-Speicherung.de – minimum data, maximum privacy » EU-Grundsatzprozess: Streit um das deutsche Verbot der Surfprotokollierung. Der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) in Luxemburg verhandelte am heutigen Donnerstag über die Klage des Piratenpolitikers und Datenschützers Patrick Breyer gegen die Bundesregierung (Az. C-582/14). Klägeranwalt Meinhard Starostik und EU-Kommission diskutierten eine Stunde lang mit Richtern und Generalanwalt, ob Anbieter von Internetportalen flächendeckend auf Vorrat speichern dürfen, wer was im Internet liest, schreibt oder sucht, oder ob Internetnutzer ein Recht auf anonyme und nicht nachverfolgbare Internetnutzung haben.
Die Bundesregierung schickte überraschend keinen Vertreter zu der Gerichtsverhandlung – möglicherweise weil sich Bundesinnen- und Bundesjustizministerium nicht auf eine gemeinsame Position verständigen konnten. Schon beim IT-Sicherheitsgesetz hatte Bundesjustizminister Maas nach Protesten des AK Vorrat eine vom Bundesinnenminister geforderte Ermächtigung von Internetanbietern zur Protokollierung der Internetnutzung verhindert.
Abschließend kündigte Generalanwalt M. Can a dynamic IP address constitute personal data? - Privacy, Security and Information Law Fieldfisher. The Advocate General ("AG") thinks so, at least in relation to the recent case it considered regarding the storing by website providers of IP addresses in connection with access to their websites. This adds further food for thought to previous case law from the CJEU and opinions from the Article 29 Working Party on whether static and/or dynamic IP addresses should be considered to be personal data. Who holds what? In the AG's opinion (Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-582/14, 12 May 2016) the AG stated that if: an internet service provider ("ISP") has a record of the temporary "dynamic IP address" assigned to a particular user's device (potentially identifiable data); and a website provider has a record of the web pages accessed by that dynamic IP address (but no other data that would allow identification of the individual); this information combined could constitute personal data in the hands of the website provider.
How does the Opinion tie in with current law? EU Advocate General Considers Dynamic IP Addresses To Be Personal Data | Inside Privacy. On May 12, 2016, EU Advocate General (“AG”) Manuel Campus Sanchez-Bordona issued an Opinion in Case C-582/14 Patrick Breyer v Germany, which is pending before the EU’s highest court (the Court of Justice). The Court is not legally bound by this Opinion, but in practice often follows the opinions of its Advocate Generals in its rulings. See here for the German language version; an English version is awaited. The AG essentially considered that dynamic ‘IP’ addresses qualify as personal data, even if the website operator in question cannot identify the user behind the IP address, since the users’ internet access providers have data which, in connection with the IP address, can identify the users in question. If followed by the Court of Justice, the Opinion will have broad implications for EU data protection law, even the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).
Background The AG’s Opinion Dynamic IP addresses as personal data. Osborne Clarke – an International Legal Practice: European Court rules website and app operators must treat dynamic IP addresses as personal data: what this means in practice. IP Address / Privacy. IP addresses subject to Personal Data Regulation. IP addresses and the Data Protection Act. An IP address in isolation is not personal data under the Data Protection Act, according to the Information Commissioner.
But an IP address can become personal data when combined with other information or when used to build a profile of an individual, even if that individual's name is unknown. What is an IP address? Computers and other devices that are connected to the internet are assigned unique identifiers known as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to identify and communicate with each other.
The internet's authority for names and numbers is ICANN, based in California. It delegates authority for the management and creation of IP addresses to a body called the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA allocates blocks of addresses to one of five Regional Internet Registries, including RIPE in Europe.
In turn, these regional bodies allocate smaller blocks of addresses to ISPs and organisations. What can be determined from an IP address? Data protection and IP addresses See: Contacts. ECJ Confirms That IP Addresses Are Personal Data - Intellectual Property - European Union. IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says. Are Dynamic IP Addresses "Personal Data"? German Federal Court of Justice seeks advice from the European Court of Justice | White & Case LLP International Law Firm, Global Law Practice.
IP addresses may be subject to EU data protection laws | White & Case LLP International Law Firm, Global Law Practice. Court Says IP Addresses Aren't Personally Identifiable ... CJEU Advocate General Opinion: Dynamic IP Addresses are Personal Data; Member States cannot limit processing permitted by the Data Protection Directive - Data Protection Report.