ARTICLE
6 July 2026

EU—Court Of Justice Clarifies When Courts May Rely On Unlawfully Obtained Personal Data As Evidence

AO
A&O Shearman

Contributor

A&O Shearman was formed in 2024 via the merger of two historic firms, Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. With nearly 4,000 lawyers globally, we are equally fluent in English law, U.S. law and the laws of the world’s most dynamic markets. This combination creates a new kind of law firm, one built to achieve unparalleled outcomes for our clients on their most complex, multijurisdictional matters – everywhere in the world. A firm that advises at the forefront of the forces changing the current of global business and that is unrivalled in its global strength. Our clients benefit from the collective experience of teams who work with many of the world’s most influential companies and institutions, and have a history of precedent-setting innovations. Together our lawyers advise more than a third of NYSE-listed businesses, a fifth of the NASDAQ and a notable proportion of the London Stock Exchange, the Euronext, Euronext Paris and the Tokyo and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on whether national courts may use personal data as evidence when that data was obtained in violation of GDPR provisions. The judgment addresses the tension between data protection rights and the right to a fair trial, establishing conditions under which unlawfully obtained evidence containing personal data may be admitted in court proceedings. This decision has significant implications for how courts across the EU balance privacy protections with the adm
European Union Privacy
Catharina Glugla’s articles from A&O Shearman are most popular:
  • in South America
  • in South America
A&O Shearman are most popular:
  • within Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring, Strategy and Consumer Protection topic(s)

On June 18, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) handed down its judgment in NTH Haustechnik GmbH v. EM (Case C-484/24). The case arose from a German employment dispute in which an employer accessed its former employee’s private eBay account—potentially unlawfully—to obtain evidence that the employee had been selling company property online. The core question referred to the CJEU was whether, and on what conditions, a national court may rely on personal data as evidence where that data was obtained in breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The CJEU held, in essence, that the GDPR does not impose an absolute prohibition on courts using unlawfully obtained personal data as evidence—the right to a fair trial justifies such processing, provided clear and foreseeable national rules (including case law) govern when and how such evidence may be admitted. The key points are as follows:

  • A court may rely on evidence containing personal data that a party obtained unlawfully, even where that party's own interest in obtaining or using the data would not, by itself, outweigh the data subject’s privacy interests.
  • National rules need not expressly state the circumstances under which a court may use personal data as evidence, provided clear, precise and foreseeable national case law establishes the relevant conditions.
  • Article 17(3)(e) GDPR does not itself provide a standalone legal basis for processing personal data in litigation; it only limits the right to erasure where the data is needed to establish, exercise or defend legal claims. 
  • Before disclosing such data to the parties (or third parties), the court must limit disclosure to what is necessary for the purpose concerned and, where appropriate, take measures (such as anonymisation) to mitigate the impact on data protection rights.
  • A failure to meet the Article 13 GDPR transparency obligations does not, by itself, prevent a court from using that data in its judicial capacity. 
  • The court must comply with the GDPR when handling personal data relating not only to the parties but also to third parties referred to in the proceedings. 

The judgment is available here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More