"The mere placing online, in return for payment, of decisions on criminal convictions, does not in principle constitute processing of personal data for 'journalistic purposes'," the Court of Justice of the European Union said in a statement on July 9th.
The ruling came after a Swedish district court in 2024 asked for guidance in a case involving a company that operated Lexbase, a database which allowed searches to see if anyone was the subject of any criminal convictions and then access them.
A person, who was convicted in 2011, had requested the removal of his personal data from the database but it was only done much later and as part of the company's internal data storage policy.
The man then filed a lawsuit with a Swedish court, seeking damages for violation of his rights under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In its defence, the company argued that as a publisher, its database was protected under Sweden's constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
The EU court noted that "under Swedish law, such protection precludes the application of the GDPR", thereby meaning that the only way for a person to assert their data protection was by bringing a defamation case.
It also noted that the GDPR required states "to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the freedom of expression and information", including for journalistic purposes.
The court said that processing personal data for "journalistic purposes" in order to "inform the public or to disclose opinions or ideas", follows a process where "the content is prepared according to ethical rules or codes of conduct and has been edited or adapted, or at least is in line with an editorial policy".
But merely placing criminal convictions online in return for payment does not appear "to fulfil those conditions or, consequently, to be capable of being regarded as carried out for journalistic purposes", the court said.
While popular, Lexbase – which catalogued rulings that can also be requested by the public – has also the been the subject of widespread debate in Sweden, with critics arguing it infringed on personal integrity.
Other similar services have also been launched, and three parliamentary inquiries have looked into limiting them but none of them has resulted in new legislation, according to public broadcaster SVT.