This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0534
Case C-534/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Second sentence of Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks — Legal basis — Article 16 TFEU — Requirement of functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)
Case C-534/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Second sentence of Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks — Legal basis — Article 16 TFEU — Requirement of functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)
Case C-534/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Second sentence of Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks — Legal basis — Article 16 TFEU — Requirement of functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)
OJ C 303, 8.8.2022, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.8.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 303/3 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH
(Case C-534/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Second sentence of Article 38(3) - Data protection officer - Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks - Legal basis - Article 16 TFEU - Requirement of functional independence - National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)
(2022/C 303/03)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesarbeitsgericht
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Leistritz AG
Defendant: LH
Operative part of the judgment
The second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a controller or a processor may terminate the employment contract of a data protection officer, who is a member of his or her staff, only with just cause, even if the contractual termination is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.