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.

Where a website operator embeds a social plugin that causes a visitor's browser to request content from the plugin provider and transmit the visitor's personal data to that provider, those processing operations are justified under Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 only if both the operator and the provider each pursue a legitimate interest through them.

Where a website operator embeds a social plugin that causes a visitor's browser to request content from the plugin provider and transmit the visitor's personal data to that provider, any consent required under Articles 2(h) and 7(a) of Directive 95/46 must be obtained by the operator only for the processing operations for which it determines the purposes and means. In the same situation, the duty to inform under Article 10 of Directive 95/46 also falls on the operator, but only as regards the processing operations for which it actually determines the purposes and means.

Article 7(e) of Directive 95/46 does not preclude Member State authorities from processing personal data, without the data subjects' consent, for collecting tax and combating tax fraud by drawing up a list of persons, provided that: (1) national legislation gives those authorities tasks carried out in the public interest within the meaning of that article; (2) drawing up the list and including the data subjects' names on it are in fact adequate and necessary for attaining those objectives; (3) there are sufficient indications to assume that the data subjects are rightly included on that list; and (4) all conditions for the lawfulness of that processing imposed by Directive 95/46 are satisfied.

Article 7(f) does not require personal data to be disclosed to a third party so that the third party can bring a civil action for damages for harm caused by the person concerned by that data protection. Article 7(f) also does not preclude such disclosure under national law.

Article 7(f) precludes national legislation that allows an online media services provider to collect and use a user's personal data without consent only where that is necessary to enable and charge for that user's specific use of the services, even where the objective of ensuring the general operability of those services may justify use of those data after a consultation period of those websites.

A Commission adequacy decision under Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46, such as Decision 2000/520, does not prevent a Member State supervisory authority under Article 28 from examining a person's claim that a transfer of personal data relating to that person from a Member State to the third country concerned does not adequately protect that person's rights and freedoms, where the person argues that the third country's law and practice do not ensure an adequate level of protection.

When assessing whether Article 12(b) and Article 14(a) apply, it must be examined, among other things, whether the data subject is entitled, at this point in time, to have the information no longer linked to his name by the list of results shown after a search on his name. That right does not depend on the inclusion of the information in the list causing prejudice to the data subject. As a rule, the data subject's rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter override both the search engine operator's economic interest and the general public's interest in finding that information through a search on the data subject's name. But not where, for particular reasons such as the data subject's role in public life, the general public's preponderant interest in access to the information justifies the interference with those rights.

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.

Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 bars national rules that, where the data subject has not consented, allow processing of personal data necessary for the legitimate interest pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed only if the data appear in public sources, even where the data subject's fundamental rights and freedoms are respected. Such rules cannot categorically and generally exclude processing of data that do not appear in public sources.

Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 can be relied on directly.

A system that processes personal data on Union citizens who are not nationals of the Member State concerned, in order to support authorities applying residence-law rules, does not satisfy the necessity requirement in Article 7(e) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, unless it contains only the data needed for those authorities to apply that legislation. It also does not satisfy that requirement unless its centralised nature makes that legislation more effective for Union citizens who are not nationals of that Member State. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are met in the main proceedings. Storing and processing personalized personal information in such a register for statistical purposes cannot, on any basis, be considered necessary within the meaning of Article 7(e) of Directive 95/46.

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.