Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen [2010]
C-92/09 · Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) · European Union
Privacy and Data Protection Lawprivacy-and-data-protection-lawPrivacy and Data Protection LawPublication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients
Issue
Whether EU regulations requiring publication of names and amounts received infringe the right to privacy and data protection.
Held
The publication was disproportionate because it did not take into account the differing amounts or sensitivities; the regulation was partially invalid.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen is included in the Privacy and Data Protection Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients. The reported citation is C-92/09, and the decision is associated with Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber). In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen is: Two farmers objected to the publication of their names and subsidy amounts on a website mandated by EU law. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Privacy and Data Protection Law, use the facts to explain why Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen is reported as a decision of Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber). The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether EU regulations requiring publication of names and amounts received infringe the right to privacy and data protection.
Held
The publication was disproportionate because it did not take into account the differing amounts or sensitivities; the regulation was partially invalid.
Ratio Decidendi
Transparency in public spending must be balanced against privacy; blanket publication of all recipients without differentiation violates proportionality.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: Transparency in public spending must be balanced against privacy; blanket publication of all recipients without differentiation violates proportionality. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Privacy and Data Protection Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen is a case to use when a Privacy and Data Protection Law answer needs an authority on Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen (C-92/09) strengthens a Privacy and Data Protection Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Transparency in public spending must be balanced against privacy; blanket publication of all recipients without differentiation violates proportionality. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether EU regulations requiring publication of names and amounts received infringe the right to privacy and data protection. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
privacy-and-data-protection-law
Privacy and Data Protection Law
Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients in Privacy and Data Protection Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Publication of personal data of agricultural subsidy recipients, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Two farmers objected to the publication of their names and subsidy amounts on a website mandated by EU law., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.