Skip to main content
Log in

“Planet49”

Decision of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) 1 October 2019 – Case No. C-673/17

  • Decision • Data Economy
  • European Union
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript
  1. 1.

    Article 2(f) and of Article 5(3) of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) 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 (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that the consent referred to in those provisions is not validly constituted if, in the form of cookies, the storage of information or access to information already stored in a website user’s terminal equipment is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which the user must deselect to refuse his or her consent.

  2. 2.

    Article 2(f) and Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46 and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation 2016/679, are not to be interpreted differently according to whether or not the information stored or accessed on a website user’s terminal equipment is personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679.

  3. 3.

    Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as meaning that the information that the service provider must give to a website user includes the duration of the operation of cookies and whether or not third parties may have access to those cookies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Author information

Consortia

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

For a comment on this decision by Klaus Wiedemann see “The ECJ’s Decision in “Planet49” (Case C-673/17): A Cookie Monster or Much Ado about Nothing?” in this issue of IIC at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00927-w.

Available at http://curia.europa.eu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v. Planet49 GmbH Directive 2002/58 as amended by Directive 2009/136, Arts. 2(f), 5(3); Directive 95/46, Art. 2(h); Regulation 2016/679, Arts. 4(11), 6(1)(a). “Planet49”. IIC 51, 527–528 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00926-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00926-x

Keywords

Navigation