PRESS RELEASE No 54/14Luxembourg, 8 April 2014Judgment in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and OthersThe Court of Justice declares the Data Retention Directive to be invalid欧洲法院宣布数据留存指令无效It entails a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, without that interference being limited to what is strictly necessary（指令）需对尊重私人生活和保护个人信息的基本权利进行广泛而深入的干涉，而这种干涉并未限制在绝对必要的情形下。
The main objective of the Data Retention Directive1 is to harmonise Member States’ provisions concerning the retention of certain data which are generated or processed by providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks. It therefore seeks to ensure that the data are available for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, such as, in particular, organised crime and terrorism. Thus, the directive provides that the abovementioned providers must retain traffic and location data as well as related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user. By contrast, it does not permit the retention of the content of the communication or of information consulted.数据留存指令的主要目的是统一与公共电子通信服务或公共通信网络供应商提供或处理特定数据留存有关的成员国法律规定。
其旨在确保数据可用于预防、调查、侦查和起诉严重犯罪，例如，特别是有组织犯罪和恐怖主义。
因此，该指令规定，上述提供者必须留存路径、数据定位以及相关数据，以确保能识别订户或用户。
与此相反，其不允许对通信内容或协商信息予以留存。
The High Court (Ireland) and the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court, Austria) are asking the Court of Justice to examine the validity of the directive, in particular in the light of two fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, namely the fundamental right to respect for private life and the fundamental right to the protection of personal data.高等法院（爱尔兰）和宪法法院（奥地利）要求欧洲法院审查该指令的有效性，尤其是基于欧盟基本权利宪章的两项基本权利，即尊重私人生活的基本权利、保护个人信息的基本权利。
The High Court must resolve a dispute between the Irish company Digital Rights Ireland and the Irish authorities regarding the legality of national measures concerning the retention of data relating to electronic communications.The Verfassungsgerichtshof has before it several constitutional actions brought by the Kärntner Landesregierung (Government of the Province of Carinthia) and by Mr Seitlinger, Mr Tschohl and 11 128 other applicants. Those actions seek the annulment of the national provision which transposes the directive into Austrian law.高等法院须解决一家名为“数字化权利爱尔兰”的爱尔兰公司与爱尔兰政府间的关于涉及留存电子通信数据国家机制合法性的纠纷。
奥地利的宪法法院将由Kärntner Landesregierung（克恩顿州州政府）和Seitlinger先生、Tschohl先生和11128位其他申请人提起的宪法诉讼提交至欧洲法院。
诉请将指令转化为奥地利国内法宣布无效。
By today’s judgment, the Court declares the directive invalid2.根据今天的判决，法院宣布该指令无效。
The Court observes first of all that the data to be retained make it possible, in particular, (1) to know the identity of the person with whom a subscriber or registered user has communicated and by what means, (2) to identify the time of the communication as well as the place from which that communication took place and (3) to know the frequency of the communications of the subscriber or registered user with certain persons during a given period. Those data, taken as a whole, may provide very precise information on the private lives of the persons whose data are retained, such as the habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or other movements, activities carried out, social relationships and the social environments frequented.法院首先注意到，留存数据使得以下情形成为可能，特别是：（1）识别与用户或订户通过任何方式通信的人的身份，（2）识别通信时间以及通信发生的地点，以及（3）了解用户或订户在一定时期内与特定的人的通信频率。
这些数据，作为一个整体，可能提供那些被数据留存的人的确切信息，如日常生活习惯、永久或临时居住场所、日常或其他运动、开展的活动、社会关系和经常光顾的场所。
The Court takes the view that, by requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. Furthermore, the fact that data are retained and subsequently used without the subscriber or registered user being informed is likely to generate in the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance.法院认为，通过要求数据留存，并允许国家有关机构访问这些数据，指令以一种非常严重的方式干涉尊重私人生活以及保护个人数据的基本权利。
进一步而言，留存数据以及在未通知订户或用户的情况下使用数据，可能使得相关人感觉个人生活受到持续监控。
The Court then examines whether such an interference with the fundamental rights at issue is justified.法院随后审查了对所涉基本权利的干涉是否合理的问题。