Classifies personal vs non-personal data per GDPR Art. 4(1) definition test with decision tree for borderline cases. References Breyer v Germany CJEU C-582/14 dynamic IP ruling and WP29 Opinion 4/2007. Keywords: personal data, GDPR Art 4, data classification, Breyer ruling, identifiability test, PII.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Personal Data Classification Test — GDPR Art. 4(1)
description
Classifies personal vs non-personal data per GDPR Art. 4(1) definition test with decision tree for borderline cases. References Breyer v Germany CJEU C-582/14 dynamic IP ruling and WP29 Opinion 4/2007. Keywords: personal data, GDPR Art 4, data classification, Breyer ruling, identifiability test, PII.
Personal Data Classification Test — GDPR Art. 4(1)
Overview
Article 4(1) of the GDPR defines personal data as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject')." This definition is deliberately broad and technology-neutral. The European Court of Justice in Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-582/14, 19 October 2016) confirmed that even dynamic IP addresses can constitute personal data when the controller has legal means to obtain additional information enabling identification. This skill provides a systematic decision framework for classifying data elements as personal, non-personal, or borderline requiring contextual assessment.
Legal Foundation
Art. 4(1) — Four Constituent Elements
Personal data exists when ALL four elements are satisfied:
Element
Definition
Assessment Criteria
Any information
No restriction on nature, content, or format of information
Includes objective facts (age, blood type) and subjective assessments (credit rating, performance review). Covers all formats: text, image, audio, biometric, metadata, behavioural
Relating to
Information must have a content, purpose, or result link to the individual
Content link: information is about the person. Purpose link: information is used to evaluate or influence the person. Result link: processing has an impact on the person's rights or interests
Identified or identifiable
The person is or can be distinguished from all other persons
Identified: directly singled out. Identifiable: can be singled out by using additional data, taking into account all means reasonably likely to be used
Natural person
Living human being, not legal entities or deceased persons
Excludes companies, government bodies, associations. Member State law may extend protections to deceased persons (e.g., Italy extends to 20 years post-mortem)
Recital 26 — "Reasonably Likely" Test for Identifiability
To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used, such as singling out, either by the controller or by another person to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. The assessment must consider:
All objective factors: cost of identification, time required, available technology at the time of processing, and technological developments anticipated during the retention period
All means reasonably likely: not limited to means the controller currently possesses — includes means any third party might reasonably employ
Dynamic assessment: what is not identifiable today may become identifiable as technology evolves or datasets are linked
The Breyer Ruling — CJEU C-582/14
Facts
Patrick Breyer challenged the German Federal Government's practice of storing dynamic IP addresses of visitors to government websites. Germany argued that dynamic IP addresses were not personal data because the website operator could not identify visitors without additional data held by the internet service provider (ISP).
Holding
The CJEU ruled that dynamic IP addresses constitute personal data for the website operator when:
The operator has legal means available to obtain additional identifying information from a third party (the ISP)
Identification does not require disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost, or labour
The means are reasonably likely to be used — not merely theoretical
Key Legal Principles Established
Relative approach to identifiability: Personal data status is assessed relative to each controller's circumstances, not in the abstract
Legal means suffice: The controller need not currently possess the identifying data; having legal channels to obtain it is sufficient
Third-party knowledge counts: Information held by third parties must be considered if the controller has lawful means of access
Broad interpretation: The CJEU confirmed the GDPR's (then Directive 95/46/EC's) intent to apply broadly to protect fundamental rights
Practical Impact
After Breyer, the following are presumptively personal data for most controllers:
Dynamic and static IP addresses
Device fingerprints and browser fingerprints
Cookie identifiers and advertising IDs
MAC addresses when combined with network access logs
Pseudonymised datasets where re-identification keys exist or are obtainable
Decision Tree for Personal Data Classification
Stage 1: Is the Data About a Natural Person?
Data Element
│
├── About a living natural person? ──► YES → Go to Stage 2
│
├── About a deceased person? ──► Check Member State law (may still be protected)
│
├── About a legal entity only? ──► NOT personal data under GDPR
│ (but may contain personal data of individuals within,
│ e.g., sole trader name = personal data)
│
└── About an anonymous aggregate? ──► Go to Stage 3 (verify truly anonymous)
Stage 2: Can the Person Be Identified or Is the Person Identifiable?
Data relates to a natural person
│
├── Person is DIRECTLY identified?
│ (name, photograph, unique ID number)
│ ──► PERSONAL DATA
│
├── Person is INDIRECTLY identifiable?
│ (combination of data points enables singling out)
│ ──► Apply Recital 26 "reasonably likely" test → Stage 2a
│
└── Person cannot be identified by any means reasonably likely?
──► NOT personal data (but document the assessment)
Stage 2a: Recital 26 Reasonably Likely Assessment
Indirect identifiers present
│
├── Does the controller hold additional data enabling identification?
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA
│
├── Does a third party hold such data, and does the controller
│ have legal means to access it? (Breyer test)
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA
│
├── Could publicly available data be combined to identify?
│ (social media, public registers, news articles)
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA
│
├── Is re-identification feasible considering:
│ - Cost vs. value of identification
│ - Time required vs. retention period
│ - Current and foreseeable technology
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA
│
└── Identification requires disproportionate effort with no
reasonable motivation?
──► NOT personal data (document reasoning)
Stage 3: Anonymisation Verification
Data claimed to be anonymous/aggregated
│
├── Can any individual be singled out from the dataset?
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA (pseudonymised, not anonymised)
│
├── Can records be linked to form a profile of an individual?
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA
│
├── Can information be inferred about a specific individual?
│ ──► YES → PERSONAL DATA
│
└── Passes all three tests (singling out, linkability, inference)?
──► Anonymised data — NOT personal data
(Apply WP29 Opinion 05/2014 framework)
Classification Categories with Examples
Category A: Clear Personal Data (Always Personal)
Data Element
Reason
Full name
Direct identifier
National ID number (SSN, Aadhaar, BSN)
Unique direct identifier
Email address (personal)
Directly identifies in most contexts
Photograph of a face
Direct visual identifier (also biometric if processed for identification)
Biometric data (fingerprint, iris scan)
Unique to individual, Art. 9 special category when used for identification
Genetic data
Unique biological identifier, Art. 9 special category
Health records with patient name
Direct identifier plus Art. 9 special category
Home address with name
Direct identifier with location
Category B: Contextually Personal Data (Requires Assessment)
Data Element
When Personal
When Not Personal
Dynamic IP address
When controller has legal means to obtain subscriber info from ISP (Breyer)
When controller has no means and no motivation to identify (rare)
Cookie identifier
When linked to browsing profile that enables singling out
When session-only cookie with no profile building
Device fingerprint
When used to track across sites/sessions
When used only for aggregate device statistics with k-anonymity
Employee ID number
When linked to HR records by same controller
When used in anonymised survey with no re-identification key
Location data (GPS coordinates)
When tracking individual movement patterns
When aggregated to postcode-level with >1000 individuals per cell
Purchase history
When linked to customer account
When stripped of all identifiers and aggregated by product category
Vehicle registration number
When plate-to-owner lookup is legally available
Not applicable — plate lookup is available in most jurisdictions, so nearly always personal
Category C: Typically Not Personal Data
Data Element
Condition for Non-Personal Status
Weather data
General environmental data not relating to individuals
Stock prices
Corporate financial data
Machine sensor readings
Equipment telemetry with no operator identification
Aggregated census statistics
Published statistical tables with adequate anonymisation
Chemical compound properties
Scientific data about substances
Company financial statements
Legal entity data (but may contain director names)
Borderline Cases — Detailed Analysis
Case 1: Pseudonymised Data
Pseudonymised data remains personal data under GDPR (Recital 26, Art. 4(5)). The existence of a re-identification key — even if held by a separate entity — means the data relates to an identifiable person. Pseudonymisation is a security measure, not an anonymisation technique.
Vanguard Financial Services Application: Customer transaction records where account numbers are replaced with random tokens. The mapping table is held by a separate internal department with access controls. These remain personal data because:
Vanguard holds the re-identification key internally
The data was processed for purposes relating to specific customers
Case 2: Behavioural Profiles Without Direct Identifiers
A profile built from browsing behaviour, purchase patterns, and location data — even without a name or email — constitutes personal data when the profile enables singling out the individual. The Article 29 Working Party in Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data confirmed that "a profile can in itself be sufficient to identify a specific user."
Case 3: Encrypted Data
Encrypted personal data remains personal data for the controller who holds the decryption key. For a third party without the key and no reasonable means to obtain it, the encrypted data may not constitute personal data (applying the Breyer relative approach). However, this assessment must account for future cryptanalytic capabilities.
WP29 Opinion 4/2007 — Key Principles
The Article 29 Working Party Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data established foundational interpretive guidance:
Content element: Information "about" a person exists when the content concerns that individual, regardless of purpose or result
Purpose element: Data is "about" a person when it is used or likely to be used to evaluate, treat, or influence that person
Result element: Data is "about" a person when processing is likely to have an impact on that person's rights or interests
Any one element suffices: Data need only satisfy the content, purpose, OR result element to "relate to" a person
Implementation Procedure for Vanguard Financial Services
Step 1: Data Element Inventory
For each system, catalogue every data element collected, stored, or processed. Record:
Field name and data type
Source of data (collected from data subject, derived, inferred, received from third party)
Sample values (redacted as needed)
Current classification if any
Step 2: Apply the Four-Element Test
For each data element, document the assessment against Art. 4(1):
Is this any information? (Almost always yes)
Does it relate to a natural person? (Content, purpose, or result link)
Is the person identified or identifiable? (Direct or indirect, applying Breyer)
Is the person a living natural person?
Step 3: Borderline Assessment
For elements not clearly personal or non-personal:
Apply the Recital 26 reasonably likely test
Consider the Breyer third-party knowledge doctrine
Document the reasoning and conclusion
Assign to a review schedule (reassess annually or when technology/data partnerships change)
Step 4: Classification Tagging
Apply classification labels:
PERSONAL_DIRECT: Directly identifies a natural person
PERSONAL_INDIRECT: Indirectly identifies through combination or third-party data
SPECIAL_CATEGORY: Art. 9 special category personal data
PSEUDONYMISED: Personal data with re-identification key separated
ANONYMISED: Verified anonymous data (not personal data)
NON_PERSONAL: Not personal data under any reasonable assessment
BORDERLINE_REVIEW: Requires periodic reassessment
Step 5: Documentation and Governance
Record all classification decisions in the data inventory
Link each personal data element to its Art. 6 lawful basis
Link Art. 9 special category data to its Art. 9(2) processing condition
Schedule annual review of borderline classifications
Trigger reclassification when new data partnerships, technologies, or regulatory guidance emerge
Enforcement Precedents
Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (CJEU C-582/14, 2016): Dynamic IP addresses are personal data when legal means to identify exist — established the relative identifiability standard
Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner (CJEU C-434/16, 2017): Examination answers and examiner's corrections are personal data of the candidate — applied the broad "relating to" test
YS v Minister voor Immigratie (CJEU C-141/12, 2014): Legal analysis in an immigration decision document is personal data of the applicant — the "result" element of the relating-to test
Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM (CJEU C-70/10, 2011): IP addresses collected in the context of monitoring internet traffic constitute personal data
Integration Points
Art. 9 Special Categories: Personal data classified as special category requires additional processing conditions — see special-category-data skill
Art. 30 Records of Processing: Classification feeds directly into the categories of personal data field in RoPA
Art. 35 DPIA: High-risk personal data classifications trigger DPIA requirements
Art. 25 Data Protection by Design: Classification determines the level of technical protection required
