By judgment of 7 October 2014, that court held that the establishment and promotion of the Lucky4All scheme did indeed constitute a misleading commercial practice. On the other hand, it found that one of the conditions identified by the Court in its judgment of 3 April 2014, 4finance (C‑515/12, EU:C:2014:211), for classifying a commercial practice as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’ within the meaning of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29 was not satisfied. More precisely, the court took the view that it had not been shown that the funding of the compensation paid out to existing members of the Lucky4All scheme depended ‘primarily’ or ‘mostly’ on the financial contributions of new members. 12 Nationale Loterij appealed against that judgment to the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium), in particular on the ground that at first instance it had been wrongly held that the Lucky4All scheme was not a prohibited pyramid promotional scheme.

TK argued before the referring court that the video surveillance system at issue infringed EU primary and secondary law, in particular the right to respect for private life both under EU and national law. He also stated that the association of co-owners had taken on the task of data controller for personal data without having followed the registration procedure in that regard provided for by law. 19 The association of co-owners stated that the decision to install a video surveillance system had been taken in order to monitor as effectively as possible who enters and leaves the building, since the lift had been vandalised on many occasions and there had been burglaries and thefts in several apartments and the common parts. 20 The association also stated that other measures which it had taken previously, namely the installation of an intercom/magnetic card entry system, had not prevented repeat offences of the same nature being committed. 21 In addition, the association of co-owners sent TK the memorandum which it had drawn up with the company which had installed the video surveillance cameras, stating that on 21 October 2016 the system’s hard drive had been erased and disconnected, that it had been taken out of operation and that the images recorded had been deleted. 22 The association also communicated to TK another memorandum, dated 18 May 2017 from which it is apparent that the three video surveillance cameras had been uninstalled. That memorandum stated that the association of co-owners had, in the meantime, completed the procedure enabling it to be registered as data controller responsible for personal data. 23 TK stated, however, before the referring court that the three video surveillance cameras were still in place. 24 The referring court notes that Article 5 of Law No 677/2001 provides, in a general manner, that processing of personal data, such as the recording of images by means of a video surveillance system, may be carried out only if the data subject has given his or her express and unequivocal consent. Paragraph 2 of that article sets out, however, a series of exceptions to that rule, which include the exception whereby the processing of personal data is required in order to protect the data subject’s life, physical integrity or health or those of a threatened third party. Decision No 52/2012 of the ANSPDCP provides for the same type of exception. 25 The referring court makes reference, next, to Article 52(1) of the Charter enshrining the principle that there must be proportionality between the aim pursued by the interference with the rights and freedoms of citizens and the means used. 26 According to that court, the video surveillance system at issue before it does not seem to have been used in a manner or for a purpose not corresponding to the stated objective of the association of co-owners, which is that of protecting the life, physical integrity or health of the data subjects, namely the co-owners of the building in which that system was installed.

Seised of the action brought against that rejection, the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne, Germany), by judgment of 14 September 2016, upheld Y’s application on the grounds, first, that the indication, in the application, of the reference number appearing on the invoices, alongside their sequential number, satisfied the formal conditions required for a refund application and, secondly, that the absence of an invoice number did not invalidate an application for a refund of VAT, in so far as that application could not be considered ‘devoid of content’. 25 The Federal Central Tax Office brought proceedings before the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany), claiming that the decision made by the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) infringed Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/9.