![[2025] UKUT 319 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The decision under appeal
The decision under appeal
The appeal concerns whether the UK Information Commissioner (“ICO”) had jurisdiction under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR” and together with the GDPR, the “GDPRs") to issue an enforcement notice (“EN”) dated 18 May 2022 and a monetary penalty notice (“MPN” and together with the EN, the “Notices”) dated 18 May 2022 to the Respondent, Clearview AI Incorporated (“Clearview”).
Because the appeal raises issues of special difficulty concerning the proper interpretation and application of the material scope provisions and the territorial scope provisions of the two GDPRs, a three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal was convened to hear the appeal.
The ICO’s appeal related to a substantive decision by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (“FTT”), issued on 17 October 2023 that the ICO lacked jurisdiction to issue the Notices because Clearview’s processing of personal data did not fall within the material scope of the two GDPRs.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 17 October 2023 was materially in error of law. It is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“TCEA
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Introduction
- The decision under appeal
- A summary of the relevant factual background
- The FTT’s decision
- The FTT’s findings of fact
- The FTT’s conclusions
- The issues in this appeal
- Appeal ground 1
- Appeal ground 2
- Appeal ground 4
- Additional Reason 1
- The scope of the appeal - admitting the additional reasons arguments for consideration
- Permitting Privacy International to intervene in the appeal
- Permitting Clearview to rely on a written reply to Privacy International’s skeleton argument
- Reliance on the evidence filed by Privacy International
- Reliance on legal arguments not raised before the FTT
- Legal framework
- Relevant legislative provisions
- The GDPR
- The UK GDPR
- “Article 2 This Regulation applies to the automated or structured processing of personal data, including
- 1A. This Regulation also applies to the manual unstructured processing of personal data held by an FOI public authority This Regulation does not apply to
- “Article 3
- The 95 Directive
- The Law Enforcement Directive
- State immunity and foreign act of state
- Material scope: the caselaw
- Territorial scope: the caselaw
- The Travaux in respect of the GDPR
- The EDPB Guidelines
- Data subjects in the Union
- The burden of proof in appeals against ICO Notices
- Analysis
- The parties’ positions on material scope in brief
- What the FTT decided in relation to Article 2(2)(a)
- General approach to construction of the GDPRs
- Domestic authorities on comity, extra-territoriality and utility
- EU authorities on extra-territorial effect and comity
- Certainty and foreseeability
- Proportionality
- EU law authorities on the construction of Article 2(2)(a) of the GDPR
- Relevant comity principles
- Our construction of Article 2(2)(a)
- Analysis of Clearview’s proposed intersectional construction
- Alternative analysis based on the ICO’s construction
- Would regulation of Clearview’s data processing breach comity principles?
- Article 3(2)(b) GDPR: territorial scope
- What was the policy objective behind Article 3(2)(b)?
- The meaning of “related to” in Article 3(2)(b)
- The meaning of “behavioural monitoring” in Article 3(2)(b)
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Clearview’s Additional Reasons
- Additional Reason 1
- Additional Reason 2
- Additional Reason 3
- Additional Reason 4
- Conclusions