Kamu ücretlerinin açıklanmasında gereklilik ve doğrudan etki

Osterreichischer Rundfunk & Ors (Approximation of laws) [2003] EUECJ C-465/00

Türkçe özet

Hukuki mesele

Kamu kurumlarında belirli eşiğin üzerinde gelir elde eden kişilerin adları ile gelirlerinin geniş bir çevreye açıklanmasının 95/46 sayılı Direktifteki gereklilik ve hukuka uygunluk şartlarıyla bağdaşıp bağdaşmadığı incelenmiştir.

Sonuç

Açıklamanın ancak kamu kaynaklarının denetimi için gerekli ve elverişli olması halinde mümkün olduğu, bu şartların ulusal mahkemece denetlenmesi gerektiği belirtilmiştir.

Avusturya mevzuatı, kamu kaynaklarından belirli eşiğin üzerinde gelir elde eden kişilerin adları ile yıllık gelirlerinin Sayıştaya bildirilmesini ve raporda açıklanmasını öngörmekteydi. Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı, böyle geniş bir açıklamanın özel hayata müdahale oluşturduğunu ve yalnız kamu kaynaklarının düzgün yönetimi için gerekli ve elverişli olduğu ölçüde kabul edilebileceğini belirtmiştir. Bu şartların somut olayda gerçekleşip gerçekleşmediğini belirleme görevi ulusal mahkemelere bırakılmıştır. Direktifin ilgili hükümlerinin doğrudan etkili olduğu ve kişiler tarafından aykırı ulusal kuralların uygulanmaması için ileri sürülebileceği de kabul edilmiştir.

Karar metni

The defendants in the main proceedings in Case C-465/00 and the Netherlands Government consider that Articles 6(1) and 7 of Directive 95/46 fulfil the criteria stated in the Court's case-law for having such direct effect. They are sufficiently precise and unconditional for the bodies required to disclose the data relating to the income of the persons concerned to be able to rely on them to prevent application of the national provisions contrary to those provisions.

The Austrian Government submits, on the other hand, that the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46 are not directly applicable. In particular, Articles 6(1) and 7 are not unconditional, since their implementation requires the Member States, which have a wide discretion, to adopt special measures to that effect.

On this point, it should be noted that wherever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied on against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or in so far as they define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State (see, inter alia, Case 8/81 Becker [1982] ECR 53, paragraph 25, and Case C-141/00 K�gler [2002] ECR I-6833, paragraph 51).

In the light of the answer to the first question, the second question seeks to know whether such a character may be attributed to Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 95/46, under which personal data must be ... adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed, and to Article 7(c) or (e), under which personal data may be processed only if inter alia processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject or is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller ... to whom the data are disclosed.

Those provisions are sufficiently precise to be relied on by individuals and applied by the national courts. Moreover, while Directive 95/46 undoubtedly confers on the Member States a greater or lesser discretion in the implementation of some of its provisions, Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) or (e) for their part state unconditional obligations.

The answer to the second question must therefore be that Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before the national courts to oust the application of rules of national law which are contrary to those provisions.

Costs

102. The costs incurred by the Austrian, Danish, Italian, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United Kingdom Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national courts, the decisions on costs are a matter for those courts.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Verfassungsgerichtshof by order of 12 December 2000 and by the Oberster Gerichtshof by orders of 14 and 28 February 2001, hereby rules:

1. Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) 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 do not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that it is shown that the wide disclosure not merely of the amounts of the annual income above a certain threshold of persons employed by the bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof but also of the names of the recipients of that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of proper management of public funds pursued by the legislature, that being for the national courts to ascertain.

2. Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before the national courts to oust the application of rules of national law which are contrary to those provisions.

Rodr�guez IglesiasPuissochet Wathelet

SchintgenGulmann Edward

La PergolaJann Skouris

MackenColneric von Bahr

Cunha Rodrigues

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 May 2003.

R. Grass G.C. Rodr�guez Iglesias

Registrar President

1: Language of the case: German.

BAILII: