CURIA - Documents. Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2008:54 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) (Information society – Obligations of providers of services – Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data – Obligation of disclosure – Limits – Protection of the confidentiality of electronic communications – Compatibility with the protection of copyright and related rights – Right to effective protection of intellectual property) In Case C‑275/06, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid (Spain), made by decision of 13 June 2006, received at the Court on 26 June 2006, in the proceedings.
CJEU in surprise judgment: zero rating is illegal under EU law - European Digital Rights (EDRi) Zero rating is a widely used commercial practice which exempts certain online services from data caps of Internet Access Services, especially on mobile networks.
This is considered a violation of basic net neutrality principles by digital rights organisations because of the incentives for using specific services invariably created by zero rating. The Net Neutrality (Open Internet) Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 does not directly mention zero rating. Article 3(2) only requires that agreements on price, data volumes and speed shall not limit the exercise of end-users’ right to net neutrality set out in Article 3(1). Upcoming data protection rulings in the EU: an overview of CJEU pending cases. September 15, 2021 Sebastião Barros Vale EU Policy Fellow There has been a surge in questions posed by national courts to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the past year on how various provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) should be interpreted and applied in practice.
They vary from understanding essential aspects of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, such as the scope of one’s right to access their own data or the appropriate lawful ground for complex processing like profiling and personalized advertising, to systemic questions such as the interplay of competition law and data protection law in digital markets. Council of State - 251.378 - GDPRhub. The Council of State confirmed that the decision of the Flemish Authorities to contract with an EU branch of a US company using AWS cloud services does not breach the GDPR.
The Council of State relied, among other things, on guidance issued by the EDPB and Flemish Supervisory Commission, which mention encryption as a possible supplementary measure for data transfers to the US. English Summary[edit | edit source] Facts[edit | edit source] GDPR Overview CaseLaw ArtesAdvocaten. Right to damages in Case law of ECJ. Telecom Italia ECJ. CJEU - Referral C-340/21 Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite 2 Jun 2021. 1.
Are Articles 24 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to be interpreted as meaning that unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data within the meaning of point 12 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by persons who are not employees of the controller’s administration and are not subject to its control is sufficient for the presumption that the technical and organisational measures implemented are not appropriate? 2. If the first question is answered in the negative, what should be the subject matter and scope of the judicial review of legality in the examination as to whether the technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller are appropriate pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679? 3. Highest EU court will decide on GDPR damages : Clyde & Co. When dealing with a civil action for non-material damages under Article 82 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), the Supreme Court of Justice (Oberster Gerichtshof – “OGH”) of the Republic of Austria decided to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”): (1) Does awarding compensation under Article 82 GDPR require, in addition to an infringement of provisions of the GDPR, that the plaintiff has suffered a damage, or is the infringement of provisions of the GDPR itself sufficient for a compensation?
(2) Are there additional requirements under EU law for the determination of compensation for damages in addition to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence? (3) Is the position compatible with EU law that it is a requirement for awarding compensation for non-material damages that there is any consequence or effect of the infringement of at least some gravity which goes beyond the mere nuisance caused by the infringement?
Decision. Pending data protection CJEU cases - GDPR Beetle. Long arm of EU privacy law: CJEU judgment in Weltimmo v Hatóság - Barry Sookman. The territorial reach and enforcement jurisdiction of European Union’s data protection law has become a lot more important these days following the decision of the Court of Justice in the Schrems case. In a case decided just a few days before Schrems, the same court gave Directive 95/46/EC a broad reading holding that the laws of a Member State apply to data controllers in another Member State who operate a website that processes data of residents of the first Member State. The Court, however, construed the enforcement jurisdiction of supervisory authorities narrowly ruling they do not have the ability to impose penalties on controllers not established in the Member State.
One of the key issues in the case was whether Weltimmo, an company registered in Slovakia, was subject to the Hungarian data protection laws. Weltimmo operated a real estate website concerning properties located in Hungary which was hosted from facilities outside of Hungary. According to the Court: CJEU: The breach of an IP clause of a software licence agreement constitutes a copyright infringement. The Court of Justice of the EU has handed down its judgment (18 December 2019, Case C-666/18) following the request for a preliminary ruling from the Paris Court of Appeal (IT Development v Free Mobile, 16 October 2018, No 17/02679; see our post here).
In answer to the question: does the breach of a software licence agreement constitute a copyright infringement, or may a contractual liability regime apply to that breach? , the CJEU answers: the breach falls within the concept of ‘infringement of intellectual property rights’, and the owner of the program must be able to benefit from the guarantees provided for by Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, regardless of the liability regime applicable under national law. French case-law.
FB fan pages co-controller. What does the ECJ Ryneš ruling mean for the Domestic Purpose exemption? - Haw... As expected the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgement on the domestic purpose exemption followed the Advocate General’s reasoning (see my previous blog).
The Court concluded that personal data collected from a public space by a home CCTV system (e.g. from the road outside the home) does not qualify for the domestic purpose exemption. This blog explores what I think this judgement means in practice (e.g. for householders, the insurance industry). CURIA - Monthly Case-law Digest - Court of Justice of the European Union. JEHOVAH WITNESS door to door data collecting and processing. RGPD e-Privacy principes actualité jurisprudence [à jour 06/2021] Caselaw 2001 2015 en. Brief-gdpr-companion. EU Law Blog: Tobacco advertising ban, harmonization and the internal market: Case C-380/03. The Court of Justice handed down an interesting and important judgment on using Article 95 EC as the legal basis for prohibiting tobacco advertising.
In its judgment in Case C-380/03 Germany v. European Parliament and Council, the Court upheld the legality of two key provisions of Directive 2003/33/EC. The judgment is both a classic one and a bit of surprise. Recent ECJ and ECtHR rulings. Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex Privacy and data protection are different legal concepts, derived from different legal instruments, applied by different courts at European level.
But the two concepts often overlap, and the relevant courts (the ECJ, interpreting the EU data protection Directive and other relevant EU laws, and the European Court of Human Rights, interpreting the right to privacy in the ECHR) sometimes make reference to the other’s case law and legal texts. In the last month, each court has given a ruling on the respective rights in the context of universities or other academic institutions. This is a good opportunity to contrast the two courts’ different approaches in comparable cases, and to draw broader conclusions about the importance of these rights in the context of education.
Students and exam scripts: the Nowak case.
ECJ road traffic offenses register. Wirtschaftsakademie. SMARANDA BARA. Rechnungshof v Österreichischer. WELTIMMO. DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND. SCARLET - IP Address PD. Exam papers PD - NOWAK Case Copy. Distinction between privacy and data protection in the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR. Skip to Main Content Advertisement Search Close Advanced Search. Schrems v Facebook - Copy. Facebook Privacy Shield. CURIA - Monthly Case-law Digest - Court of Justice of the European Union. Latest CJEU opinion may illuminate personal data risks.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Oct. 2, 2018, that national authorities may access certain types of personal data from electronic communication providers in the course of a criminal investigation because it does not amount to a “sufficiently serious” interference with fundamental rights. The personal data at issue included surnames, forenames, and addresses. Collecting this personal information amounted to interference with fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, but the CJEU held such access was justified even if not fighting a serious crime. The CJEU explained that “when the interference that such access entails is not serious, that access is capable of being justified by the objective of preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting ‘criminal offences’ generally.” Case background The case arose when a Spanish man reported to police in February 2015 that his mobile phone had been stolen.
Legitimate interest. CJCE Data Protection v NATIONAL SECURITY. CJCE CO-controllorship. ECJ - serious crime and right to access data. FB fan pages co-controller. Google Spain v Gonzales R2BF. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Espanol de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) CJCE Data Protection v NATIONAL SECURITY. ECJ - serious crime and right to access data. Watson case - serious crime justification. Digital Rights Ireland v Zettlung. JEHOVAH WITNESS door to door data collecting and processing. PNR transfer to Canada invalidated. Schrems II et transferts de renseignements personnels : l’effet secondaire du vaccin contre la COVID-19.
£3 billion Safari iPhone privacy lawsuit given go-ahead. A UK class action privacy lawsuit against Google can go ahead, according to the UK Court of Appeal. The suit claims up to £3bn ($3.9bn) in damages based on Google’s manipulation of Apple’s Safari browser in 2011-12. In 2010, Apple included anti-tracking technology in Safari that would stop advertising companies from inserting cookies into the browser. Google developed a workaround, enabling it to put cookies from its DoubleClick advertising technology into users’ browsers anyway. Safari’s anti-tracking technology at the time made an exception for sites that users interacted with, so Google included code in advertisements that made it look as though the user was filling out a form.
CJEU: The breach of an IP clause of a software licence agreement constitutes a copyright infringement. What does the ECJ Ryneš ruling mean for the Domestic Purpose exemption? - Haw...