Article 23: Restrictions
Praxikon tracks Article 23 (Restrictions) under the GDPR, alongside the EU AI Act, citing the source for every statement.
Official text
Source: EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Official text, reproduced without modification.
Cross-references
More case law, guidelines and fines
In addition to the overview at the bottom of this page: rulings, guidelines and fines that interpret or apply this article, newest first. Each item was checked against the official source.
Case law (8)
- 30 April 2024 · C-470/21 · CJEUePrivacy DirectiveLa Quadrature du Net II
The Full Court also allows general retention of IP addresses for ordinary online offences, provided they are kept so separately that no precise conclusions about private life can be drawn.
- 26 October 2023 · C-307/22 · CJEUFT v DW (medical records)
The first copy of one's own data is free, even if the patient wants it for a claim against the doctor. In a doctor-patient relationship the right to a copy can extend to the full medical record where needed.
- 20 September 2022 · C-793/19, C-794/19 · CJEUePrivacy DirectiveSpaceNet and Telekom Deutschland
Germany's general retention obligation for traffic and location data breaches EU law; the Court confirms the La Quadrature du Net line.
- 24 February 2022 · C-175/20 · CJEUValsts ieņēmumu dienests
A large-scale information request by a tax authority falls under the GDPR and must respect the Article 5 principles. Derogations require a legislative measure within the meaning of Article 23.
- 2 March 2021 · C-746/18 · CJEUePrivacy DirectiveProkuratuur
Access to retained traffic and location data is only allowed for serious crime and after prior review by a court or independent body; a public prosecutor that also prosecutes is not such a body.
Show 3 more
- 6 October 2020 · C-511/18, C-512/18, C-520/18 · CJEUePrivacy DirectiveLa Quadrature du Net I
General retention of traffic and location data remains prohibited, with limited exceptions such as a serious threat to national security. Article 23 GDPR precludes a general retention obligation for hosting providers.
- 21 December 2016 · C-203/15, C-698/15 · CJEUePrivacy DirectiveTele2 Sverige and Watson
National laws under the ePrivacy Directive may not impose general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data either. Targeted retention for serious crime is allowed, with prior review of access.
- 8 April 2014 · C-293/12, C-594/12 · CJEUePrivacy DirectiveDigital Rights Ireland
The Data Retention Directive 2006/24 is invalid: general retention of everyone's traffic data, without distinction or safeguards, is a disproportionate interference with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.
Guidelines (1)
- 13 October 2021 · v2.1 · EDPBGuidelines 10/2020 on restrictions under Article 23 GDPR
Describes under which conditions legislators may restrict data subject rights and certain controller obligations.
Line of case lawRetention of telecom data
May states have everyone's traffic and location data retained?
- Digital Rights Ireland (2014)The Data Retention Directive is invalid.
- Tele2 Sverige and Watson (2016)National general retention obligations are prohibited too.
- La Quadrature du Net I (2020)Limited exceptions, including for national security.
- Prokuratuur (2021)Access only for serious crime and after independent review.
- SpaceNet and Telekom Deutschland (2022)The German retention law fails; the line stands.
- La Quadrature du Net II (2024)General retention of IP addresses is allowed with strict separation.
Checked on 5 November 2026