On January 14, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) decided that video recordings of police officers in the exercise of their duties and the uploading of such videos on YouTube may constitute “journalistic activities” in the meaning of the journalism exception of the EU Data Protection Directive (“Directive”) (available here).

The claimant in the present case recorded police officers on active duty in their police station and uploaded the video on YouTube.  The Latvian Supervisory Authority ordered the claimant to remove the video claiming that both the recording and the online disclosure violated Latvian data protection law.  Eventually, the Latvian Supreme Court referred the matter to the CJEU.

The CJEU decided that the storage of such video on a recording device and the subsequent online disclosure of the video on a social platform constitute data processing activities that fall within the scope of the Directive.

The CJEU also decided that the online disclosure of the video may fall under the definition of “journalistic activities” established by the CJEU in its Satamedia decision of 2008, which broadly defined the concept of “journalistic activities” to include “disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium which is used to transmit them.”  According to the CJEU, the fact that the claimant in this case is not a professional journalist does not necessarily exclude him from benefiting from the journalism exception.  Furthermore,  it was unimportant to the court that the recording depicted wrongdoings by police officers.

The court did limit the journalism exception by indicating that it only applies if (i) the video is solely published for journalistic purposes (and not other purposes such as voyeuristic purposes) and (ii) the limitation to the right to privacy of the police officers was necessary to uphold the claimant’s right to freedom of expression.

The GDPR contains a similar exception for the use of personal data for journalistic purposes, so the outcome of this decision would likely be quite similar under the GDPR.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kristof Van Quathem Kristof Van Quathem

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty…

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty years and developed particular experience in the life science and information technology sectors. He counsels clients on government affairs strategies concerning EU lawmaking and their compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, and has represented clients in non-contentious and contentious matters before data protection authorities, national courts and the Court of the Justice of the EU.

Kristof is admitted to practice in Belgium.

Photo of Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses

I advise companies across the EU on technology laws, with a focus on data protection, cybersecurity, and current consumer protection laws. I help businesses navigate complex regulations like the GDPR, AI Act, Digital Services Act, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and the upcoming Digital…

I advise companies across the EU on technology laws, with a focus on data protection, cybersecurity, and current consumer protection laws. I help businesses navigate complex regulations like the GDPR, AI Act, Digital Services Act, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, turning legal requirements into practical, business-friendly solutions.

In data protection, I support tailored GDPR compliance, international data transfers, and privacy-conscious marketing. On cybersecurity, I guide clients through risk assessments, incident response, and evolving laws such as NIS2 and the Cyber Resilience Act. Regarding consumer protection, I advise on existing laws to help businesses revise their terms and conditions for compliance and review online interfaces to ensure all mandatory consumer information is clearly provided, tackling issues like dark patterns and unfair contract clauses.

Fluent in multiple languages and experienced across borders, I’m passionate about helping clients embed compliance into their operations and thrive in the fast-changing digital landscape.