- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-683/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã (Portugal) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0683
62013CN0683
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
22.2.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 52/31
(Case C-683/13)
2014/C 52/57
Language of the case: Portuguese
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA, Domingos Sequeira de Almeida, Luis Mesquita Soares Moutinho, Rui Teixeira Soares de Almeida, André de Carvalho e Sousa
Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)
Questions referred
(a)Is Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘personal data’ covers the record of working time, that is to say, the indication, in relation to each worker, of the times at which working hours begin and end, together with the related breaks and intervals?
(b)If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, is the Portuguese State obliged, under Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC, to adopt appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where processing involves the transmission of data over a network?
(c)If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, if ever the Member State does not adopt any measure pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and if an employer, as a controller of such data, adopts a system of restricted access to those data which does not allow automatic access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions, is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State cannot penalise the employer for such behaviour?
(d)If the answer to Question (c) is in the negative, while it has not been shown or argued that the information from the record has not, in the present case, been altered, is the requirement that a record be immediately available, enabling all parties to the employment relationship to have general access to the data, proportionate?
* 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 (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).