European Court of Justice

Subscribe to European Court of Justice

The CJEU’s decision is likely to have significant implications for ongoing and future proceedings for damages claims under Art. 82 GDPR.

By Tim Wybitul, Christoph Baus, Stefan Patzer, and Isabelle Brams

On April 15, 2021, the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) referred key questions regarding non-material damages for data protection infringements under Art. 82 GDPR to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU. So far, a number of claims for non-material damages based on violations of the GDPR have been dismissed by the courts in Austria and Germany because the plaintiffs did not allege or prove any noticeable immaterial impairment. The OGH makes reference to a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) dated January 14, 2021 in which the court overturned a decision by the Goslar Local Court (AG). The BVerfG ruled that the AG would have had submit significant questions about damages to the CJEU before making a decision in the final instance. Whilst the OGH disagreed with the finding of the BVerfG, it considered it helpful to refer question to the CJEU in order to ensure a harmonized application of the law within the EU.

Court’s decision struck down blanket prohibition on so-called “cookie walls” that prevent users from accessing a website or an application.

By Myria Saarinen and Charlotte Guérin

France’s Highest Administrative Court (the Conseil d’Etat) issued a decision on 19 June 2020 upholding most of the guidance on cookies and other tracking devices that the French Data Protection Authority (the CNIL) had published on 4 July 2019 (the Guidance). However, the Conseil d’Etat struck down the provision of the Guidance imposing a blanket prohibition on so-called “cookie walls” that prevent users who do not consent to the use of cookies from accessing a website or an application. On the same day, the CNIL published a communication acknowledging the decision and announcing that it would adjust its Guidance and future recommendation to strictly comply with the Conseil d’Etat’s decision.

After the recent two-year anniversary of the GDPR, one fundamental question remains — who does the GDPR apply to?

By Gail Crawford, Ulrich Wuermeling, and Calum Docherty

Last month marked the two-year anniversary of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but its territorial reach is still hotly debated. This blog post takes a detailed look at the final guidelines on the territorial scope of the GDPR, which the European Data Protection Board (the EDPB) published on 12 November 2019 following public consultation of its draft guidelines dated 23 November 2018 (the Guidelines).

The Guidelines contain several helpful clarifications around when the GDPR applies to controllers and processors of personal data. At the same time, however, the Guidelines still present latent ambiguity as to when and to what extent the GDPR applies, particularly for multinationals.

Speakers: Gail Crawford, Jennifer Archie, Ulrich Wuermeling

On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU Commission’s decision that had allowed companies to transfer personal data from the EU to the United States under the EU-US Safe Harbor Framework. Two months on, various bodies and EU privacy regulators have issued guidance, including a statement by the Article 29 Working Party effectively making clear that there will be a grace period in enforcement concluding at the…

By Brian Meenagh

On October 26, 2015, Raja Al Mazrouei, the Commissioner for Data Protection for the Dubai International Financial Centre (the DIFC), issued guidance on the adequacy of US Safe Harbor for the purpose of exporting personal data from the DIFC. The guidance is significant for organisations that transfer personal data from the DIFC to the US and such organisations should urgently review the basis upon which they transfer personal data from the DIFC to the US to ensure that they continue to comply with the DIFC Data Protection Law (No 1 of 2007).

The guidance follows the decision of the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) in Case C-362/14 – Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner that Decision 2000/520 of the European Commission, which stated that Safe Harbor-certified US companies provide adequate protection for personal data transferred to them from the EU (the Safe Harbor Adequacy Decision), is invalid.

The key message from the guidance is that:

“the invalidation of the Adequacy Decision by the ECJ provides cause for the Commissioner to reconsider the adequacy status previously afforded under the Law to US Safe Harbor Recipients. However, the Commissioner also understands that there are ongoing negotiations between Europe and US authorities towards an improved Safe Harbor framework and that these negotiations are well advanced.