On May 24, ECJ issued General Court judgment in case T-451/20.
ECJ announced action brought by Meta (Facebook group) against EC request seeking disclosure of documents identified by means of search terms was dismissed entirely.
Meta has not successfully demonstrated request to provide documents to be identified by search terms went beyond what was necessary.
Nor that virtual data room failed to ensure sensitive data was sufficiently protected.
Key Aspects
Per suspicions of anticompetitive behaviour by Facebook group in its use of data and in management of its social network platform the EC issued decision of May 4, 2020.
Requesting information from Meta Platforms Ireland, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd.
Decision adopted pursuant to Art 18(3) of Reg 1/2003 required Meta to provide all documents prepared or received by 3 of its executives within the period concerned.
Those contained one or more of the search terms defined in the annexes; decision provided for potential fine of €8 million per day in the event of failure to comply.
In Jul 2020, filed action for annulment of decision, application for interim measures.
More details are provided on the said measures and the underlying facts of the case.
Main Aspects
Court considered that overall assessment of compliance with principle of necessity set out in Art 18 of Reg 1/2003 is not appropriate in present case, even if it were possible.
Fact that certain search terms may, as Meta submitted, be too vague has no bearing on fact that other search terms may be sufficiently precise/targeted to enable finding.
May aid EC determine if infringement of competition rules has taken place, established.
Only search terms specifically challenged by Meta Platforms Ireland may be reviewed as to whether the principle of necessity has been observed.
Other search terms regarded as having been defined in accordance with that principle.
Court confirmed information request per Art 18(3) is appropriate measure to attain general interest goals pursued by EC i.e. maintenance of competition system per TFEU.
Sensitive Data and Processing
Observed it is not disputed certain documents requested contained sensitive personal data capable of falling within data referred to in art 9 GDPR, art 10 of Reg 2018/1725.
Ability to undertake processing is subject to 3 conditions: processing must pursue a significant public interest with its basis in EU law; must be necessary to fulfil that goal.
EU law must be proportionate to aim pursued, respect right to data protection essence
Provide suitable, specific measures to safeguard rights, interests of the data subject.
Contested decision does not go beyond what necessary to achieve objectives pursued.
Request is appropriate measure, processing of personal data entailed also necessary.
Referring to arrangements for transmission, consultation, evaluation, anonymization of Protected Documents, Court considered third condition is also satisfied in present case.
Virtual Data Room
Established contested decision, laying down virtual data room procedure, does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of general interest pursued by EC.
Court found disadvantages involved in procedure not disproportionate to aims pursued.
Impediment to right to privacy caused by contested decision satisfies the conditions of Art 52(1) of EU Charter so rejected complaints alleging infringement of Art 7 Charter.
Since other pleas in law raised by Meta also proved unfounded, Court dismissed action.
