Take-Aways (AI)
  • The ECJ con­firms that mem­ber sta­tes can allow com­plaints from com­pe­ti­tors based on com­pe­ti­ti­on law under the GDPR.
  • Per­so­nal details in online orders for phar­ma­cy-only medi­ci­nes are con­side­red health data if they allow con­clu­si­ons to be drawn about the patient’s sta­te of health.
  • This clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on applies regard­less of whe­ther the order is pla­ced for the user hims­elf or for a third party.

The pre­sent ruling of Octo­ber 4, 2024 (C‑21/23 i.S. Lin­den­apo­the­ke) con­cerns the ope­ra­tor of the Lin­den phar­ma­cy, which sells phar­ma­cy-only medi­ci­nes via Ama­zon. A com­pe­ti­tor had applied for a ban if cus­to­mers did not con­sent to the pro­ce­s­sing of the rele­vant data. The Ger­man Fede­ral Court of Justi­ce had refer­red que­sti­ons to the ECJ in the cor­re­spon­ding proceedings.

The ECJ first con­firms that the GDPR does not pro­hi­bit mem­ber sta­tes from Com­pe­ti­tor com­plaints based on com­pe­ti­ti­on law to allow:

  • The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data is of gre­at eco­no­mic importance. It is the­r­e­fo­re pos­si­ble that com­pli­ance with data pro­tec­tion law is rele­vant to com­pe­ti­ti­on (which has alre­a­dy been con­firm­ed by the ECJ in the Bun­des­kar­tell­amt case, Case No. C‑252/21).
  • Art. 80 (2) GDPR (Mem­ber Sta­tes may regu­la­te the right of cer­tain orga­nizati­ons to lodge com­plaints) is an ope­ning clau­se. Even if the­re is no men­ti­on of com­pe­ti­tor com­plaints, no full har­mo­nizati­on is inten­ded here. Com­pe­ti­tor com­plaints can also streng­then the effec­ti­ve­ness of the GDPR. For this rea­son and for other con­side­ra­ti­ons, the GDPR allo­ws the Mem­ber Sta­tes to allow com­pe­ti­tor com­plaints based on com­pe­ti­ti­on law.

The second point is much more rele­vant in prac­ti­cal terms, the Scope of the con­cept of health data. The BGH had asked whe­ther data from the online orde­ring of medi­ci­nes (such as name or deli­very address) is health data. This is the case if con­clu­si­ons about the sta­te of health “can be drawn” from the data. Howe­ver, it is suf­fi­ci­ent if such con­clu­si­ons can be drawn indirectly:

82 In par­ti­cu­lar, the­se pro­vi­si­ons [espe­ci­al­ly Art. 9 para. 1 GDPR] can­not be inter­pre­ted as mea­ning that the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data that is Indi­rect­ly sen­si­ti­ve infor­ma­ti­on about a natu­ral per­son is exclu­ded from the enhan­ced pro­tec­tion pro­vi­ded for in the­se provisions […].

83 In order for per­so­nal data to be clas­si­fi­ed as health data within the mea­ning of Art. 8 para. 1 of Direc­ti­ve 95/46 and Art. 9 para. 1 GDPR, it is the­r­e­fo­re suf­fi­ci­ent that the­se data by means of men­tal com­bi­na­ti­on or deri­va­ti­on the sta­te of health of the per­son con­cer­ned can […].

This should app­ly pri­ma vista to order data:

84 From the data that a cus­to­mer enters when orde­ring phar­ma­cy-only medi­ci­nes via an online plat­form, can be used to infer the sta­te of health of the per­son con­cer­ned […] by means of a men­tal com­bi­na­ti­on or deduc­tionas the order estab­lishes a link bet­ween a medi­cinal pro­duct, its the­ra­peu­tic indi­ca­ti­ons and uses and an iden­ti­fi­ed natu­ral per­son or a natu­ral per­son iden­ti­fia­ble by details such as name or deli­very address.

Howe­ver, the BGH was unsu­re here becau­se orders can also be pla­ced for third par­ties. The ECJ does not agree:

88 Accor­din­gly, if a user of an online plat­form trans­mits per­so­nal data when orde­ring phar­ma­cy-only but non-pre­scrip­ti­on medi­ci­nes, the pro­ce­s­sing of this data by the ope­ra­tor of a phar­ma­cy that sells the­se medi­ci­nes via the online plat­form is to be regard­ed as pro­ce­s­sing of health data […], sin­ce the pro­ce­s­sing of this data may reve­al infor­ma­ti­on about the sta­te of health of a natu­ral per­son, regard­less of whe­ther this infor­ma­ti­on con­cerns the user or ano­ther per­sonfor which this order is placed […].

The ECJ uses the all-pur­po­se wea­pon of data pro­tec­tion law to justi­fy its decision:

89 An inter­pre­ta­ti­on of tho­se pro­vi­si­ons which dif­fe­ren­tia­tes accor­ding to the natu­re of the medi­cinal pro­ducts con­cer­ned and whe­ther their sale requi­res a medi­cal pre­scrip­ti­on would not be con­si­stent with the objec­ti­ve, set out in para­graph 81 of the pre­sent judgment, of a high level of pro­tec­tion. […]

The­r­e­fo­re:

90 Con­se­quent­ly, the infor­ma­ti­on ente­red by a phar­ma­cy operator’s cus­to­mers when orde­ring phar­ma­cy-only but non-pre­scrip­ti­on medi­ci­nes online con­sti­tu­tes health data […] […].