ePrivacy Directive

Article 9

Location data other than traffic data

1. Where location data other than traffic data, relating to users or subscribers of public communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services, can be processed, such data may only be processed when they are made anonymous, or with the consent of the users or subscribers to the extent and for the duration necessary for the provision of a value added service. The service provider must inform the users or subscribers, prior to obtaining their consent, of the type of location data other than traffic data which will be processed, of the purposes and duration of the processing and whether the data will be transmitted to a third party for the purpose of providing the value added service. Users or subscribers shall be given the possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of location data other than traffic data at any time.

2. Where consent of the users or subscribers has been obtained for the processing of location data other than traffic data, the user or subscriber must continue to have the possibility, using a simple means and free of charge, of temporarily refusing the processing of such data for each connection to the network or for each transmission of a communication.

3. Processing of location data other than traffic data in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 must be restricted to persons acting under the authority of the provider of the public communications network or publicly available communications service or of the third party providing the value added service, and must be restricted to what is necessary for the purposes of providing the value added service.

Holdings

C-641/2315 Jan 2026

YM v Openbaar Ministerie

Article 9(1)(d) and Article 25 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for an obligation or an option for the competent authority of a Member State to rely on Article 9(1)(d) in order to refuse to recognise the judgment and enforce the sentence imposed in another Member State on the ground that they relate to acts which would not constitute an offence under the law of the first Member State, where,

– in the first place, the executing judicial authority of that Member State previously decided to execute the European arrest warrant which gave rise to that judgment and that sentence,

– (i) by waiving the right to rely on the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which is also based on the absence of double criminality, for an offence covered by Article 2(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and,

– (ii) by making the surrender of the person concerned, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him or her in the issuing Member State, and

– in the second place, no change in circumstances has occurred after the surrender of the person concerned, subject to a guarantee of return, which would justify not giving effect to that guarantee.

C-416/2017 Dec 2020

TR v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority may not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, where the person concerned has prevented the service of a summons on him in person and did not appear in person at the trial because he had absconded to the executing Member State, on the sole ground that that authority has not been given the assurance that, if the person is surrendered to the issuing Member State, the right to a new trial, as defined in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, will be respected.