Skip to main content
Praxikon

Article 23: Restrictions

Praxikon tracks Article 23 (Restrictions) under the GDPR, alongside the EU AI Act, citing the source for every statement.

Chapter IIIIn force since 25-05-2018

Official text

/
Union or Member State law to which the data controller or processor is subject may restrict by way of a legislative measure the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Articles 12 to 22 and Article 34, as well as Article 5 in so far as its provisions correspond to the rights and obligations provided for in Articles 12 to 22, when such a restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard: (a) national security; (b) defence; (c) public security; (d) the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security; (e) other important objectives of general public interest of the Union or of a Member State, in particular an important economic or financial interest of the Union or of a Member State, including monetary, budgetary and taxation a matters, public health and social security; (f) the protection of judicial independence and judicial proceedings; (g) the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of breaches of ethics for regulated professions; (h) a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, to the exercise of official authority in the cases referred to in points (a) to (e) and (g); (i) the protection of the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others; (j) the enforcement of civil law claims.
In particular, any legislative measure referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain specific provisions at least, where relevant, as to: (a) the purposes of the processing or categories of processing; (b) the categories of personal data; (c) the scope of the restrictions introduced; (d) the safeguards to prevent abuse or unlawful access or transfer; (e) the specification of the controller or categories of controllers; (f) the storage periods and the applicable safeguards taking into account the nature, scope and purposes of the processing or categories of processing; (g) the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects; and (h) the right of data subjects to be informed about the restriction, unless that may be prejudicial to the purpose of the restriction. CHAPTER IV Controller and processor Section 1 General obligations

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 Directive
    La 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 · CJEU
    FT 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 Directive
    SpaceNet 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 · CJEU
    Valsts 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 Directive
    Prokuratuur

    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 Directive
    La 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 Directive
    Tele2 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 Directive
    Digital 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)

Line of case lawRetention of telecom data

May states have everyone's traffic and location data retained?

  1. Digital Rights Ireland (2014)The Data Retention Directive is invalid.
  2. Tele2 Sverige and Watson (2016)National general retention obligations are prohibited too.
  3. La Quadrature du Net I (2020)Limited exceptions, including for national security.
  4. Prokuratuur (2021)Access only for serious crime and after independent review.
  5. SpaceNet and Telekom Deutschland (2022)The German retention law fails; the line stands.
  6. La Quadrature du Net II (2024)General retention of IP addresses is allowed with strict separation.

Checked on 5 November 2026