Judgment of the Court of Justice Grand Chamber, 30 April 2024, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bolzano, C-178/22

• Date: 30 April 2024
• Year: 2024

31

In addition, despite the fact that there are certain provisions scattered throughout the Polish legal

order which the Republic of Poland alleges are compatible with some of the requirements under the

Whistleblowers Directive, the lack of clear and specific rules concerning the protection of persons who

report breaches of EU law is a barrier to the effective protection of those persons and can therefore

call into question the uniform and effective application of EU law in the areas covered by that

directive.

The Court also observes that, in view of the fact that the Republic of Poland failed to adopt, within the

period that it had announced, the provisions necessary to comply with the Whistleblowers Directive,

its cooperation with the Commission during the pre-litigation procedure cannot be taken into account

as a mitigating circumstance.

Thus, the Court takes the view that, in order effectively to prevent a repeat of infringements similar to

that resulting from the infringement of the obligation to transpose the Whistleblowers Directive in the

future, a lump sum must be imposed, the amount of which must be fixed at EUR 7 000 000. In the

event that the failure established in that judgment were to persist on the date of delivery of that

judgment, the Court orders the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission, as from that date and

until that Member State has put an end to that failure, a daily penalty payment in the amount of

EUR 40 000.

2. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 30 April 2024, Procura della Repubblica

presso il Tribunale di Bolzano, C-178/22

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector –

Confidentiality of communications – Providers of electronic communications services – Directive

2002/58/EC – Article 15(1) – Articles 7, 8, 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

European Union – Access to those data requested by a national authority having competence to

prosecute offences of aggravated theft – Definition of the concept of ‘serious offence’ the prosecution of

which is capable of justifying serious interference with fundamental rights – Competence of the Member

States – Principle of proportionality – Scope of prior review by a court of the requests to access the data

retained by providers of electronic communications services

Following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice delle indagini preliminari presso il

Tribunale di Bolzano (judge in charge of preliminary investigations at the District Court, Bolzano, Italy),

the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice clarifies who is responsible for defining the concept of

‘serious offence’ for the purposes of applying Article 15(1) of the ‘Privacy and Electronic

Communications’ Directive.

69

The Court also rules on the scope of the national court’s prior review of

requests for access to the data retained by providers of electronic communications services.

Following two thefts of mobile telephones, the Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bolzano

(Public Prosecutor’s Office at the District Court, Bolzano, Italy) brought two sets of criminal

69

Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the

protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37), as

amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11) (“‘the Privacy

and Electronic Communications Directive’).