We oppose the introduction in Luxembourg of criminal sanctions for the use of data from court decisions for the purpose of analysing, comparing or evaluating judicial practices.
The proposed provision in draft law No. 8721 introduces a broad ban on the “profiling” of judges, including through automated tools. It risks covering not only abusive practices but also legitimate activities in the public interest.
📖 Text of the proposed provision
Article 141-1
Any person who reuses, directly or indirectly, personal data of judges and court staff contained in judicial decisions for the purpose of profiling them, in particular in order to carry out automated evaluation, analysis, comparison or prediction of their actual or supposed professional practices, shall be punished by imprisonment of one month to two years and a fine of 251 to 45,000 euros.
Where the offence is committed by a legal person, the applicable fine ranges from 1,250 to 2,500,000 euros.
⚖️ What is the problem
Court decisions are public information. Their analysis is essential for:
- investigative journalism
- academic and legal research
- monitoring judicial practice
- ensuring transparency and public trust
However, the proposed rule could restrict:
- digital analysis of case law
- creation of legal databases
- comparison of judicial decisions
- identification of systemic issues
🚨 Risks to freedom of expression
This provision poses serious risks to:
- freedom of expression
- access to information
- freedom of the press
It may affect journalists, researchers, lawyers, developers and civil society.
It also creates a “chilling effect”.
🇪🇺 Conflict with European law
European case law protects:
- the use of information of public interest
- analysis of public data
- freedom of the press and research
EU law requires a balance between data protection and freedom of information.
In its current form, draft law No. 8721 fails to meet this requirement.
✅ Our position
We believe that:
- combating abuse is legitimate
- but a general prohibition is unacceptable
- a clear distinction must be made between abuse and legitimate use
📢 Our demand
We call for:
- revision of the provision
- explicit exceptions for journalism and research
- limitation to genuinely abusive practices