On Decem­ber 3, 2003, the sin­gle judge at the Mei­len District Court ruled in a pre­cau­tio­na­ry pro­ce­e­ding that the acti­vi­ty of a pri­va­te inve­sti­ga­tor falls under the DPA. The infor­ma­ti­on he coll­ects may con­tain per­so­na­li­ty pro­files and per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion. Thus, his acti­vi­ty may vio­la­te the DPA (Art. 4 para. 3 and 4 and Art. 14), but this may be justi­fi­ed by an over­ri­ding inte­rest of his cli­ent (DPA 10a, 12, 13).

PDF: 2003.12.03 – 001