search

… Bulgaria (§ 18 and the case-law cited). 80 See, by analogy, judgment of 21 January 2021, Whiteland Import Export (C-308/19, EU:C:2021:47, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited). 81 I note that, in (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), Article …

… Article 82(1) of / must be interpreted as precluding the degree of fault on the part of the controller from being taken into account for the purpose of assessing the compensation for non-material damage payable under that article. 4. …

… Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 4 September 2025 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - (EU) / - Rights of the data subject - Article 17 - Right to erasure of data - Article 18 - Right to restriction of processing - Article 79 - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Unlawful processing of personal data - Action seeking an order requiring the controller to refrain from any …

… Heller, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 March 2025, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 17, 18, 79, 82 and 84 of (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data …

… The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 77(1) and Article 79(1) of (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). (2) 2. …

… G S Other party: Bundesministerin für Justiz, D GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court, Austria)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - (EU) / - Articles 77 and 79 - Remedies - Parallel exercise - Relationship between an administrative complaint and a judicial remedy - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness) I. Introduction 1. …

… In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the questions for a preliminary ruling referred by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court, Austria) as follows: Article 77(1) and Article 79(1) of (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC …

… The central question raised by this case concerns the relationship between (EU) / (2) (‘the GDPR’) and Directive (EU) 2016/680 (3) and is aimed at clarifying the basis of and conditions for recourse to the right to the erasure of data that are being stored in such circumstances. II. Legal framework A. EU law 1. Directive 2000/78/EC 4. …

… Article 17(3) of /, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(c) and Article 6(3) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that the storage, in a police officer’s personnel file, of personal data relating to a criminal investigation in which that officer was the subject of investigative measures, as a suspect, and which was discontinued, cannot be considered lawful for the purposes of compliance with a legal obligation to which the public authority that is his employer is subject under …

… Article 2(1) of (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC and Article 9(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention …

… The present request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt (District Court, Attunda, Sweden) gives the Court the opportunity to clarify the scope of Article 85 of (EU) /, (2) in a situation where a database operator refuses to grant a person’s request to erase personal data relating to their criminal conviction. I. Legal framework A. European Union law 2. Article 85 of the GDPR deals with ‘Processing and freedom of expression and information’. …

… ), must be interpreted as precluding a national law under which the only legal remedy available to a person whose personal data are processed by making criminal convictions involving that person available to the public on the internet in return for payment is the initiation of criminal proceedings for defamation or the claiming of damages for defamation. (2) Article 85(2) of / must be interpreted as meaning that an activity which consists of making available to the public on the …

… In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Attunda tingsrätt (District Court, Attunda, Sweden) as follows: (1) Article 85(1) of (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation …

… homogeneously, in particular because the scheme of this Regulation should be understood as equivalent to the scheme of (EU) /. … (16) The principles of data protection should apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable natural person. …

… Whenever the provisions of this Regulation follow the same principles as the provisions of (EU) / [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1; “the GDPR”)], those two sets of provisions should, under the case-law of the [Court of Justice], be interpreted …

… That principle of accountability, which is also laid down in Article 5(2) of (EU) /, (49) must be interpreted in the light of Article 54 of that directive. It follows that the obligation to state reasons arises from the general scheme of the directive. 86. …

… The present case concerns the obligation of a controller, as defined in point 7 of Article 4 of (EU) / (‘the GDPR’), (2) to provide information to a data subject where personal data are collected by means of a body camera worn by ticket inspectors on public transport. …

… Provisional text OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MEDINA delivered on 1 August 2025 (1) Case C-422/24 Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten v AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data - (EU) / - Personal data obtained by means of a body camera worn …

… Moreover, under Article 14(2)(f) of the GDPR, the data controller must inform the data subject from which source the personal data originate. 11 According to the Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under /, 29 November 2017, WP260 rev. 01, paragraph 28, endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) on 25 May 2018 (‘the WP 29 Guidelines on transparency’), the maximum time limit within which information under Article 14 must be provided is in any case one …

… /. …

… The competence of the EDPB under Article 65(1)(a) of / is limited to those matters alone. …

… There is nothing in / justifying putting the complainant in the same procedural situation as the party under investigation. Neither / nor the EDPB’s Rules of Procedure grant the complainant a right to access to the file. …

… (EU) / 8 Recital 4 of (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1) states. ‘The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. …

… Whenever the provisions of this Regulation follow the same principles as the provisions of [/], those two sets of provisions should, under the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union …, be interpreted homogeneously, in particular because the scheme of this Regulation should be understood as equivalent to the scheme of [/]. … (22) In order for processing to be lawful, personal data should be processed on the basis of the necessity for the performance …

… According to the General Court, the need to strike such a balance is emphasised by the EU legislature in recital 4 of /, of which 2018/1725 is the ‘equivalent’ as regards the protection of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, as stated in recital 5 of Regulation 2018/1725. 56 The General Court inferred from this, in paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal, that it could not be accepted that the Parliament may invite TC to state his …