Article 7(c) of Directive 95/46 and point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 6(3) of Regulation 2016/679, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation requiring the online publication of the private interests declaration lodged by any head of an establishment receiving public funds, in so far as that publication concerns name-specific data relating to the declarant's spouse, cohabitee or partner, or to persons who are close relatives of the declarant, or persons known by him or her, liable to give rise to a conflict of interests. They also preclude such publication in so far as it concerns any transaction concluded during the last 12 calendar months whose value exceeds EUR 3000.

Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, do not preclude national provisions authorising the installation, without the data subjects' consent, of a video surveillance system in the common parts of a residential building for the legitimate interests of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals and property. That is so if the personal data processing carried out by means of that system satisfies the conditions in Article 7(f), which is for the referring court to determine.

Consent to the storage of information, or access to information already stored, on a website user's device by cookies is not valid if it is given through a pre-checked box that the user must deselect to refuse consent.

The rules on consent to cookies do not differ according to whether the information stored or accessed on a website user's device is personal data.

As EU law currently stands, it is for the Member States to decide whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of Directive 68/151 may ask the authority responsible for keeping the relevant central, commercial or companies register to decide, case by case, whether it is exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, after a sufficiently long period following the dissolution of the company concerned, access by third parties to personal data about them entered in that register to third parties that can demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data.

Directive 95/46 does not preclude national legislation requiring an employer to make working-time records available for immediate consultation by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions - provided that this is necessary for that authority to perform its task of monitoring compliance with working-conditions law, in particular on working time.

Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 do not bar national legislation requiring broad disclosure of the annual income above a set threshold, and of the names of the recipients, of persons employed by bodies subject to Rechnungshof control - provided that this disclosure is necessary and appropriate to the legislature's objective of proper management of public funds, which the national courts must ascertain.

Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly applicable: an individual may rely on them before the national courts to disapply contrary national rules.