search

… (EU) /. …

… This paragraph is without prejudice to the possibility for the gatekeeper to rely on Article 6(1), points (c), (d) and (e) of (EU) /, where applicable.’ 44 So far as concerns the applicant’s arguments, it should be noted, in the first place, that the alleged harm is purely hypothetical for the following reasons. 45 First of all, as the Commission submits in its observations on the application for interim measures, the harm alleged by the applicant is based on the assumption that …

… provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services; (c) cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and (d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of …

… Article 82 of / must be interpreted as meaning that that article does not require that the severity of the infringement made by the controller be taken into consideration for the purposes of compensation under that provision. 4. …

… Article 82(1) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the person seeking compensation by way of that provision is required to establish not only the infringement of provisions of that regulation, but also that that infringement caused him or her material or non-material damage. 5. …

… Article 82(1) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation laid down in that provision, in particular in the case of non-material damage, fulfils a compensatory function, in that financial compensation based on that provision must allow the damage actually suffered as a result of the infringement of that regulation to be compensated in full, and not a punitive function. 3. …

… In the present case, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) is once again referring for a preliminary ruling a question relating to the interpretation of Article 80(2) 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. …

… (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - (EU) / - Article 12(1), first sentence - Transparency of information - Article 13(1)(c) and (e) - Obligation of the controller to provide information - Article 80(2) - Representation of the data subjects by a consumer protection association - Representative action brought …

… In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) as follows: Article 80(2) 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) must …

… JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 16 January 2024 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Article 16 TFEU - (EU) / - Article 2(2)(a) - Scope - Exclusions - Activities which fall outside the scope of Union law - Article 4(2) TEU - Activities concerning national security - Committee of inquiry set up by the parliament of a Member State - Article 23(1)(a) and (h), Articles 51 and 55 of ( …

… Kranenborg, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 May 2023, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 16(2) TFEU and of Article 2(2)(a), Article 51(1), Article 55(1) and Article 77(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 …

… Article 77(1) and Article 55(1) of / must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has chosen, in accordance with Article 51(1) of that regulation, to establish a single supervisory authority, without, however, conferring on it the competence to monitor the application of that regulation by a committee of inquiry set up by that Member State’s parliament in the exercise of its power of scrutiny over the executive, those provisions directly confer on that authority the …

… Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 January 2024 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and free movement of such data (General Data Protection ) - (EU) / - Point 7 of Article 4 - Concept of ‘controller’ - Official journal of a Member State - Obligation to publish as they stand company documents prepared by companies or their legal representatives …

… Simon, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 June 2023, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of point 7 of Article 4 and Article 5(2) 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 …

… Point 7 of Article 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), must be interpreted as meaning that the agency or body responsible for the official journal of a Member State, which is inter alia required, under the law of that State, to publish as they stand …

… Article 32 of / and the principle of effectiveness of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the appropriateness of the security measures implemented by the controller under that article, an expert’s report cannot constitute a systematically necessary and sufficient means of proof. 5. …

… Article 82(1) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the fear experienced by a data subject with regard to a possible misuse of his or her personal data by third parties as a result of an infringement of that regulation is capable, in itself, of constituting ‘non-material damage’ within the meaning of that provision. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Bulgarian. …

… The principle of accountability of the controller, set out in Article 5(2) of / and given expression in Article 24 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for damages under Article 82 of that regulation, the controller in question bears the burden of proving that the security measures implemented by it are appropriate pursuant to Article 32 of that regulation. 4. …

… JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 14 December 2023 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - (EU) / - Article 82 - Right to compensation and liability - Concept of ‘non-material damage’ - Online publication of the agenda for a municipal council meeting containing personal data - Publication without the consent of the data subjects - Claim of those data subjects seeking compensation for non-material damage) In Case C-456/22, REQUEST for a preliminary …

… Kranenborg, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 82(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 …

… On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: Article 82(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), must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice which sets a ‘de minimis threshold’ in order to establish non-material …

… JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 7 December 2023 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - (EU) / - Article 22 - Automated individual decision-making - Credit information agencies - Automated establishment of a probability value concerning the ability of a person to meet payment commitments in the future (‘scoring’) - Use of that probability value by third parties) In Case C-634/21, REQUEST for a …

… Kranenborg, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 March 2023, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 22 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 …

… On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules: Article 22(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) must be interpreted as meaning that the automated establishment, by a credit information agency, of a probability value based on personal data relating …

… Article 17(1)(d) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the controller is required to erase unlawfully processed personal data as soon as possible. [Signatures] * Language of the case: German. …

… Article 17(1)(c) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay where he or she objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1) of that regulation and there are no overriding legitimate grounds capable of justifying, exceptionally, the processing in question. 4. …

… Article 78(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) must be interpreted as meaning that a decision on a complaint adopted by a supervisory authority is subject to full judicial review. 2. …

… Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the classification of two entities as joint controllers does not require that there be an arrangement between those entities regarding the determination of the purposes and means of the processing of personal data in question; nor does it require that there be an arrangement laying down the terms of the joint control. 3. …

… JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 5 December 2023 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - (EU) / - Article 4(2) and (7) - Concepts of ‘processing’ and ‘controller’ - Development of a mobile IT application - Article 26 - Joint control - Article 83 - Imposition of administrative fines - Conditions - Requirement that the infringement be intentional or negligent - Responsibility and liability of the controller for the processing of personal data carried …

… Article 4(2) of / must be interpreted as meaning that the use of personal data for the purposes of the IT testing of a mobile application constitutes ‘processing’, within the meaning of that provision, unless such data have been rendered anonymous in such a manner that the subject of those data is not or is no longer identifiable, or unless it involves fictitious data which do not relate to an existing natural person. 4. …