The bit in question: "For example, pursuant to the last sentence of this Article a data subject may not
benefit from information and the right to oppose the processing of his/her data if a cookie collects his
language preferences or his location (e.g. Belgium, China) as this kind of cookies could be presented as
having as objective the facilitation of the transmission of a communication"
I think this regards storing the users locale information in a cookie .. you wouldn't need to store this in a cookie if you can store it on your server which links the locale information via a session cookie.
I don't think that kind of difference matters in the eyes of those who created the directive. I believe if you store a cookie that is later used to recover locale information stored on your server, that would not exempt you from the consent and refusal provisions. But I could be wrong.
[Edit] In any event, I agree with you that the article blows this issue completely out of proportion.
> I don't think that kind of difference matters in the eyes of those who created the directive.
Note: what matters is the difference in the eyes of those who interpret the directive. In this sense, the actual verbiage (and not authorial intent) is paramount.
I think this regards storing the users locale information in a cookie .. you wouldn't need to store this in a cookie if you can store it on your server which links the locale information via a session cookie.