{"id":86892,"date":"2026-07-16T11:35:56","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T09:35:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/?post_type=dpi&p=86892"},"modified":"2026-07-16T11:36:10","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T09:36:10","slug":"data-protection-insider-issue-157","status":"publish","type":"dpi","link":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/en\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-157\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Insider, Issue 157"},"content":{"rendered":"

Table of Contents:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. CJEU:\u00a0Narrow Definition of Journalistic Exceptions in the GDPR\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. EDPB\u00a0Releases\u00a0New\u00a0Documents\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    In the present edition, we inform our readers of\u00a0a\u00a0CJEU\u00a0judgment on the balance between data protection and freedom of expression. In addition, we\u00a0list the newest activities and documents by the\u00a0EDPB.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    CJEU:\u00a0Narrow Definition of Journalistic Exceptions in the GDPR<\/h2>\n

    [1]<\/a> On 9<\/span>th<\/span>\u00a0July, the CJEU ruled\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0balance between the rights to data protection and freedom of expression\u00a0in\u00a0<\/span>ND v Legal\u00a0Newsdesk\u00a0Sweden AB<\/span><\/i>.\u00a0As to the facts of the case, the applicant in the main proceedings\u00a0(ND) was convicted of a criminal offence. The information about his conviction was published by Legal\u00a0Newsdesk\u00a0Sweden on its\u00a0Lexbase\u00a0database, where information about the criminal proceedings against natural and legal persons is published and which allows searches\u00a0to be made\u00a0within the database. ND requested the erasure of\u00a0the\u00a0data\u00a0concerning his conviction, but Legal\u00a0Newsdesk\u00a0Sweden erased the data\u00a0only\u00a0much later,\u00a0and\u00a0not as a response to his request, but\u00a0on the basis of\u00a0its internal data storage policies. The dispute resulted in the request for\u00a0a\u00a0preliminary ruling\u00a0around\u00a0the question\u00a0on the scope of the journalistic exceptions\u00a0in Article 85(1) and (2)\u00a0GDPR and the Member State right to legislate on the balance between the rights to data protection and freedom of expression, including on the available remedies in defamation cases. In its ruling, the CJEU, based on a combined reading of Articles 85(1) and (2) GDPR,\u00a0first\u00a0established that\u00a0when Member States adopt legislative measures under Article 85(1) GDPR to reconcile the two fundamental rights, they may not provide \u201cfor exemptions or derogations from that regulation for the processing of personal data for purposes other than journalistic purposes or the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression\u201d.\u00a0Second,\u00a0as to\u00a0effective remedies,\u00a0the CJEU\u00a0examined the question whether domestic legislation may restrict the available remedies in defamation cases to criminal proceedings\u00a0or claims for damages. The CJEU ruled that Article 85(2) GDPR does not allow derogations from the GDPR provisions on effective remedies and hence that\u00a0the legal measures adopted by the Member States on the basis of Article 85(1) GDPR may not restrict\u00a0the available remedies\u00a0only to \u201cthe possibility to bring criminal proceedings for defamation or to bring an action for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of having been defamed.\u201d Finally, as to the question on the\u00a0scope of the notion of \u201cjournalistic\u00a0purposes\u201d\u00a0when processing personal data about\u00a0criminal\u00a0convictions, the CJEU ruled that\u00a0\u201cmaking available to the public on the internet, in return for payment, public documents consisting of criminal convictions cannot be regarded as processing of personal data carried out for \u2018journalistic purposes\u2019, within the meaning of that provision, unless it has as its purpose the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, in compliance with the ethical rules and codes of conduct of the profession of journalist, after editing or adaptation, or at least in accordance with an editorial policy, and after verification of the factual allegations concerned\u201d.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    EDPB\u00a0releases new documents<\/h2>\n

    [2]<\/a> In the past two weeks, the EDPB announced that it is drafting Guidelines on respecting data protection in the fight against financial crime together with the Anti-Money Laundering Authority and released the following documents:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n