search

… processed’. 55 That same requirement also applies in the context of /. …

… /, that such consent must meet the requirements under Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46 or Article 4(11) of that regulation, depending on which of those two rules is applicable ratione temporis to the facts at issue in the main proceedings. 54 Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46, defines the term ‘consent’ as meaning ‘any freely given specific and informed indication of his [or her] wishes by which the data subject signifies his [or her] agreement to personal data relating to him [or her] being …

… (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L 119, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2018 L 127, p. 2), entitled ‘Repeal of Directive 95/46/EC’ provides: ‘References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Regulation. …’ 10 Article 4(11) of that regulation …

… (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 (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1). …

… I should recall that, in the judgment in La Quadrature du Net, paragraph 210, the Court held that, ‘… as is the case for Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, the power conferred on Member States by Article 23(1) of / may be exercised only in accordance with the requirement of proportionality, according to which derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary (see, by analogy, with regard to Directive 95 …

… ’. 20 According to Article 3 of Regulation No 596/2014, ‘traffic data records’ means records of traffic data as defined in point (b) of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 2002/58, that is to say ‘any data processed for the purpose of the conveyance of a communication on an electronic communications network or for the billing thereof’. 21 Emphasis added. 22 Emphasis added. 23 Emphasis added. 24 It does, however, lay down a data retention period of five years. 25 Directive repealed by …

… (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). 3 By the order of 14 July 2021, the Vice-President of the Court ordered the Republic of Poland, pending delivery of the judgment closing the proceedings in Case C-204/21: (a) to suspend, first, the application …

… subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; - by adopting and maintaining in force Article 88a of the amended Law relating to the ordinary courts, Article 45(3) of the amended Law on the Supreme Court and Article 8(2) of the amended Law relating to the administrative courts, the Republic of Poland has infringed the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, guaranteed by Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter and by Article 6(1)(c) and (e), Article 6(3) and Article 9(1) of …

… Question 1a Article 55(3) of / does not require a determination of whether a processing operation of the national courts ‘acting in their judicial capacity’ affects independent judicial decision-making in each specific case. …

… Question 1b The determination of the nature and purpose of a particular processing operation does not form part of the criteria to be taken into account, under Article 55(3) of /, when establishing whether the national courts were acting ‘in their judicial capacity’. …

… Question 1c For the purposes of determining whether a processing operation of the national courts was carried out ‘in their judicial capacity’, within the meaning of Article 55(3) of /, it is not relevant whether those courts acted pursuant to an express legal basis in national law. 1 Original language: English. 2 Burton, J.H. …

… Indeed, regardless of how the concept of economic activity should be understood, the information needed by the defendant to determine which court will have jurisdiction on this ground is very likely to be covered, for individuals, by / (73) and, for companies, to a certain extent, by business confidentiality. (74) In practice, therefore, one might wonder if it will be at least as difficult for the defendant to predict which courts will have jurisdiction on the basis of the centre …

… However, the Court did not specify if by ‘activities’ it intended to refer to the applicant’s clients or to the means of production employed to satisfy them. 72 Guimaraes, G., ‘The Corporate Ad; Wall Street’s Supersalesman’, Industry Week, 10 June 1985, and Boistel, P., ‘La réputation d’entreprise: un impact majeur sur les ressources de l’entreprise’, Management & Avenir, vol. 17, no 3, 2008, pp. 9-25. 73 (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the …

… Norway (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, § 130). 94 See, for illustration, my Opinion in the parallel case in Nordzucker. 95 (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). …

… (EU) / (‘the GDPR’) (2) is not a narrow piece of legislation. Its broadly defined scope of application, the effective judicial emptying of any exceptions to it, (3) as well as the definitions-based, abstract and in consequence rather sweeping approach to its interpretation, (4) have all contributed to making the reach of the GDPR virtually limitless. …

… I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court, Latvia) as follows: - Article 6(1)(c) and (3) 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 does not preclude national rules from laying down, without any limit in time, an obligation for …

… Internet advertising service providers to communicate certain personal data to a tax authority, as long as there is a clear legal basis in national law for such a type of data transfer and the data requested are suitable and necessary for the tax authority to complete its official tasks. 1 Original language: English. 2 (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 …

… A notable and more recent example of such an extraterritorial empowerment in EU law is the competence of the lead supervisory authority under the one-stop-shop of (EU) / (‘the GDPR’) to investigate and if need be to sanction the entirety of cross-border processing carried out by a controller or processor within the European Union. (50) Although it would be far-fetched to claim that the exact limits of competence within that regime are undisputed, (51) there is still no doubt that …

… In addition, Directive 2019/1, which is nonetheless not applicable ratione temporis to the main proceedings, harmonises some aspects of the imposition of fines in its Chapter V. 50 Article 56(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) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1). …

… That law was adopted on 20 December 2019 and entered into force on 14 February 2020. 29 Since the Commission took the view that, in adopting that law, the Republic of Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 7, Article 8(1) and Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6(1)(c) and (e), Article 6(3) and Article 9 of /, on 29 April 2020 it sent a letter of formal notice to that Member State, which responded …

… (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). 3 On 6 May 2021, the Republic of Poland submitted its written observations on the application for interim measures. …

… subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; - by adopting and maintaining in force Article 88a of the amended Law relating to the ordinary courts, Article 45(3) of the amended Law on the Supreme Court and Article 8(2) of the amended Law relating to the administrative courts, the Republic of Poland has infringed the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, guaranteed by Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter and by Article 6(1)(c) and (e), Article 6(3) and Article 9(1) of …

… It is clear from Article 2(f) of Directive 2002/58, in conjunction with Article 94(2) of /, that such consent must meet the requirements under Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46 or Article 4(11) of that regulation, depending on which of those two rules is applicable ratione temporis to the facts at issue in the main proceedings. …

… That directive was repealed with effect from 25 May 2018, by (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 4(11) of which defines ‘consent’ of the data subject as being ‘any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of …

… See, also, judgment of 11 November 2020, Orange Romania (C-61/19, EU:C:2020:901, paragraphs 28 to 32). 14 As the Court stated in its judgment of 11 November 2020, Orange Romania (C-61/19, EU:C:2020:901), ‘the wording of Article 4(11) of [ /], which defines the ‘consent of the data subject’ for the purposes [of that regulation], appears even more stringent than Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46, in that it requires a ‘freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous’ indication of the …