EU court weighs GDPR and digital evidence in employment dispute

The judgment emphasised fair trial rights and data minimisation when handling personal information in court.

Skip to main content Main Menu Navigation for access to support pages Navigation for access to legal pages Logo Viva Technology News VivaTech 2026 Day One Digest VivaTech 2026 Day One Digest Article by C Collie Mall Copywriter @VivaTech Posted at: 06.17.2026in category: VivaTech 2026 has officially begun, and we were thrilled to welcome our attendees in Paris once again. Let's recap the highlights from Day One. daily digest one.png If you only have 2 minutes Bezos unveiled Prometheus, an AI venture built to do physical engineering that standard language models cannot handle McKinsey told Stage One that 80% of large companies now invest in AI but only 6% see any profit impact, barely up from 4% a year earlier. Their verdict, it is an execution problem, and

The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that the GDPR does not require national courts to automatically exclude evidence containing personal data solely because it was previously obtained unlawfully by one of the parties.

The case, C-484/24 NTH Haustechnik v EM, concerns a dispute between a German employer and a former employee. The employer sought damages over the alleged unauthorised sale of company property and relied on information obtained through access to the former employee’s private eBay account.

The referring German court asked whether judicial use of such evidence would itself amount to personal data processing under the GDPR and whether the EU data protection law required the evidence to be excluded.

The CJEU found that a court’s handling of evidence containing personal data can constitute data processing. However, such processing may be lawful where the court must perform its judicial duties and decide the dispute before it.

The Court also clarified that the GDPR does not create an automatic exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in breach of privacy or data protection rules. National courts must instead assess whether the processing is necessary and proportionate, while respecting GDPR principles and the rights protected by the EU Charter.

The ruling is relevant to civil and employment proceedings because it clarifies the relationship among data protection law, the right to evidence, and the right to effective judicial protection.

Why does it matter?

The case clarifies an important boundary in GDPR litigation: unlawful collection of personal data does not automatically make evidence unusable in court, but it also does not give parties a free pass to gather evidence unlawfully. Courts must balance privacy and data protection rights with the right to effective judicial protection. The ruling could affect employment disputes, civil claims and digital evidence cases where emails, platform accounts, logs or other personal data are submitted as proof.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot