In the case of Deldits (C-247/23, 13.3.2025), the CJEU ruled on the right to rectification of incorrect personal data appearing in a public register, as provided for by Article 23 of Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (“General Data Protection Regulation”, “GDPR”).

In the case at hand, VP, an Iranian national who had obtained refugee status in Hungary, unsuccessfully applied for the rectification in the asylum register of their gender identity from female to male. VP’s application, which relied on Article 16 of the GDPR (right to rectification of inaccurate personal data), was rejected by the Hungarian asylum authority on the ground, inter alia, that VP had not proved that they had undergone gender reassignment surgery.

In light of Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR (principle of the accuracy of personal data), the CJEU first holds that since the purpose of collecting personal data is to identify the data subject, these data should relate to VP’s gender identity at the time of their registration in the asylum register and not the gender identity assigned to them at birth. National law cannot stand in the way of the right to have incorrect data rectified accordingly, pursuant to Articles 8(2) of the EU-Charter and 16 of the GDPR (§§ 32-37).

The CJEU then examines, in light of Article 23 of the GDPR, which regulates the restrictions which can be applied to the rights and obligations laid down in the GDPR, the Hungarian administrative practice according to which the exercise of the right to rectification of the personal data relating to the gender identity of a natural person is conditional upon the production of evidence of, in particular, gender reassignment surgery.

The CJEU finds this practice not to fulfil the requirements of Article 23 and, consequently, to be incompatible with the right to rectification of personal data, within the meaning of Article 16, because a) the said practice is not provided for by a legislative act, and b) the only evidence accepted in support of the request for rectification of the person’s gender identity is evidence of a gender reassignment surgery.

*              *              *

What is noteworthy, from a Convention point of view, is the CJEU’s reasoning leading to that conclusion, notably on the question whether the restrictions entailed by the said practice respect the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms involved and are necessary and proportionate, as required by Article 23. In holding that this is not the case, because the said practice undermines the essence of, in particular, the right to the integrity of the person and the right to respect for private life, as enshrined in Articles 3 and 7 of the EU-Charter, the CJEU also refers to case-law of the ECtHR to the same effect, notably X and Y v. Romania and Garcon and Nicot v. France.

The CJEU thereby relies on Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, according to which the rights guaranteed by the Charter have the same meaning and the same scope as the corresponding rights guaranteed by the Convention, the latter constituting a minimum threshold of protection (§ 46).

The impact of such references by the CJEU in the application of the GDPR should not be underestimated, as they confirm the relevance of the Convention in this legal area, more particularly in making clear that restrictions under the GDPR not only must comply with the Charter but also should not lower the Convention protection level. Such an indication is even more significant in view of the fact that the GDPR itself makes no reference to the Convention, except in Recital 73 dealing with restrictions. This somehow suggests that the EU lawmaker considered the Convention to be of little importance for the GDPR.

Nowhere else is there any explicit indication by the EU lawmaker that the GDPR does not intend to lower the Convention protection level, as one can find in numerous other pieces of secondary legislation, e.g. in their non-regression clauses. Admittedly, Recital 4 states that the GDPR “respects all fundamental rights and observes the freedoms and principles recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties”. But can such a general formulation in a recital be equated with a proper non-regression clause?

The value of such non-regression or equivalent clauses becomes clear when considering that pursuant to Articles 78 and 79 of the GDPR, national courts are competent to deal with the judicial remedies which data subjects are entitled to use against supervisory authorities, controllers or processors acting on the basis of the GDPR. As with any other EU law context, when applying the GDPR these national courts must also comply with the Convention (see, among others, Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France). Mutatis mutandis, this, in principle, also holds true for all other national bodies or agents entrusted with the performance of duties under the GDPR, since no part of the legal systems of the EU Member States is outside the scope of the ECtHR’s jurisdiction as determined by Article 1 of the Convention (Bosphorus v. Ireland, § 153).

The CJEU can therefore only be commended for referring in this important area to Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter and the threshold function it confers on the Convention in EU law (on this function, see Optionality of the Convention). First, this is a useful reminder that the application of the GDPR by national authorities is not outside the scope of the Convention. Secondly, the reference to the threshold function of the Convention is also an indication that while it can perhaps be assumed that the GDPR is generally not lowering the Convention protection level, this should nonetheless, by virtue of Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, be double-checked at national level in case of doubt in a concrete case, if necessary by referring the issue to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.

In the case of VB II (Information on the right to a new trial; C-400/23, 16.1.2025), the CJEU interpreted Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (“the Directive”). These provisions deal with criminal convictions in absentia.

In the case before the referring court, the Sofia City Court, criminal proceedings had been initiated against VB on drug-related charges. Since the prosecution authorities did not manage to locate VB, he was not formally notified of the charges, nor was he informed of the date and place of the trial or of the consequences of his non-appearance. With its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court inquired about the rights to which VB would be entitled in the event of a conviction in absentia to a custodial sentence.

One of the particularities of Bulgarian law relevant in this case is that after the expiry of the time limit for lodging an appeal against a decision rendered in absentia, the only available legal remedy is the submission of a request for a new trial to the Supreme Court of cassation, the only court with jurisdiction to deal with such matters. The referring court therefore inquired, inter alia, about whether it was compatible with Article 8(4), 2^nd sentence, of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 9, to entrust another court than the trial court with ruling on a request to reopen the criminal proceedings.

In answering this question, the CJEU considers that the said provisions of the Directive do not preclude a system whereby exclusive jurisdiction to consider requests for a new trial is entrusted to another court than the one which convicted a person in absentia, provided that the proceedings before the latter court observe the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

The latter principle entails, inter alia, a guarantee that the proceedings relating to the request to reopen criminal proceedings lead to the recognition of the right to a new trial in all cases where none of the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of that Directive are satisfied (§§ 53 and 59). According to the latter provision, a criminal trial can take place in the absence of the suspect or accused person if either the suspect or accused person has been informed, in due time, of the trial and of the consequences of non-appearance, or if that person, having been informed of the trial, is represented by a mandated lawyer, who was appointed either by the suspect or accused person or by the State.

Thus, the concern of the CJEU is that the court deciding on a new trial should be left with no discretion on whether to reopen the proceedings in all cases where none of the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) are met. In other words, if none of the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) are met, the right to a new trial is automatic. Conversely, there is no right to a new trial if the absent suspect or accused person was either properly informed about the trial and the consequences of not attending it, or represented by a lawyer at that trial.

While this finding does not come as a surprise, being the result of a faithful interpretation of the relevant Articles of the Directive, it nonetheless raises some questions from a Convention point of view. They relate to the approach followed by these provisions in dealing with absent suspects or accused persons, notably as regards the question whether and, if so, when these persons can be considered to have waived their right to be present at their trial, thus precluding any new trial.

In this context, it is to borne in mind that, along with many other provisions of the Directives on procedural rights in criminal proceedings, Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive initially sought to codify the case-law of the ECtHR (see the Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings), here the one on criminal convictions in absentia. It would appear, though, that these provisions limit the right to a new trial to a greater extent than under Article 6 of the Convention, notably by precluding any new trial if the suspect or accused person has been “informed, in due time, of the trial and of the consequences of non-appearance”.

While indeed the ECtHR also relies on the fact that an absent person has been properly informed about the trial in order to conclude that he/she has waived his/her right to be present at his/her trial, this circumstance is not necessarily decisive, as room is nonetheless left for the possibility that his/her absence might be due to circumstances beyond the control of the person concerned, like health issues, or indeed to force majeure and, consequently, for an explanation to that effect by that person. A Grand Chamber of the ECtHR indeed ruled in Sejdovic v. Italy:

Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial …. However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance … Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest ….

Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6 of the Convention, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be…

A person charged with a criminal offence must not be left with the burden of proving that he was not seeking to evade justice or that his absence was due to force majeure … At the same time, it is open to the national authorities to assess whether the accused showed good cause for his absence or whether there was anything in the case file to warrant finding that he had been absent for reasons beyond his control (§§ 86-88, emphasis added).

The ECtHR also considers that:

In view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial …, Article 6 of the Convention imposes on every national court an obligation to check whether the defendant has had the opportunity to apprise himself of the proceedings against him where … this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit (Somogyi v. Italy, § 72).

Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive do not appear to allow for special circumstances justifying non-appearance of a duly informed accused at his/her trial, nor does the interpretation by the CJEU in the present case, which ignores the more flexible and therefore more protective Strasbourg case-law on these issues. Admittedly, the CJEU insists on the right for the accused to be heard on whether the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of the Directive were satisfied (§ 66). However, the scope of that hearing seems limited to these objective conditions, nothing being said by the CJEU about any possibility for the accused to “show good cause” in this context.

This is somewhat surprising in view of recitals 47 and 48 of the Directive, referred to by the CJEU (§ 68), which require the Convention and the EU-Charter to be taken into account. It is even more surprising in view of the non-regression clause laid down in Article 13 of the Directive and Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, both to the same effect, these provisions being simply ignored by the CJEU. This is only one more confirmation that in EU law the Convention is only optional (see EU accession as logical answer to the optionality of the Convention in EU law).

Thus, what we see here amounts to a reduction of the Strasbourg protection afforded to absent suspects or accused persons. It is the result of an objectivation and autonomization of only some of the Strasbourg criteria, which are made to suffice as the sole basis for concluding on the existence of a waiver by the accused of the right to be present at trial, thereby leaving no room for exceptional or personal circumstances capable of excusing his/her non-appearance at the trial. In other words, the assessment becomes a mechanical rather than an individualised operation.

This may also be the reason why at no point in the Directive or the present judgment reference is made to the notion of “waiver”: because waiver is a rather subjective notion, referring to the intentions of an accused person which objective criteria only help identify. Here is the main difference between the Strasbourg and Luxembourg approach: while objective criteria such as the non-appearance at trial, in spite of proper information about it, are used by the ECtHR as a means to find out about the intention of the accused to waive his/her right or to escape justice, these criteria are being autonomized by the Directive, as interpreted by the CJEU, in the sense that they are made to suffice in justifying the holding of a trial without the accused person, regardless of the latter’s intentions and circumstances.

In sum, while the issue under the Convention is the waiver of the right to attend one’s trial, the issue under the Directive is only whether the objective test of its Article 8(2) is met. This also transpires from Spetsializirana prokuratura (trial of an absconded suspect; C-569/20, 19.5.2022).

Yet it is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies (Taxquet v. Belgium, § 93).

*           *            *

The present judgment only confirms the risks involved in trying to codify the case-law of the ECtHR on the fairness of criminal proceedings (Article 6 of the Convention), which is what the Directives on fundamental rights in criminal proceedings seek to do. These risks range from freezing the case-law to leaving gaps (as in Spetsializirana prokuratura (trial of an absconded suspect)) or, as in the present case, lowering the Strasbourg protection level.

It is precisely in respect of such deficits that the non-regression clauses featuring in all these Directives, along with Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, play an essential role in preventing the protection level of the Directives to fall below the Strasbourg level. However, this can only work if these safeguard-provisions are duly applied and seen as allowing or indeed calling for a departure from a purely textual and positivistic interpretation of some provisions of the Directives, so as to make them match at least the Strasbourg protection level.

In this connection, it is indeed striking to see the CJEU in the present case being far more creative and “protective” on the modalities of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of cassation, which are not regulated as such by the Directive, than on the more fundamental issue of the conditions to be met for the reopening of the proceedings, which are governed by that Directive.

*           *            *

Be that as it may, national judges who apply their domestic law transposing Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive may be confronted with the fact that for the reasons stated above, the Convention standards on the waiver by an accused person of the right to attend trial are more protective than those of the Directive. In view of the obligation on domestic courts to apply EU law in compliance with the Convention (see M.B. v. the Netherlands), and in order to avoid their judgment being successfully challenged before the ECtHR, these judges should therefore preferably apply the Convention standards, of course without prejudice to the application by them of Article 267 TFEU.

In this connection, it is clear that, as repeatedly indicated by the CJEU, the Convention not being part of EU law, the CJEU does not have jurisdiction to assess the compatibility of EU legislation with the Convention (see, among others, Åkerberg Fransson, § 44). One may however wonder whether Article 52(3), 1^st sentence, of the EU-Charter might not have the potential, if explicitly relied on in a referral request, to allow the CJEU to at least indirectly verify to what extent EU law complies with the minimum Convention protection level. Domestic courts might want to test this.