The CJEU held that not only static IP addresses (ref. Scarlet) are protected personal data under data protection law, but also dynamic ones, and that national laws can't restrict interest which are legitimate under EU law.
In a case on copyright infringement, the CJEU stated that IP addresses are protected personal data because they allow data subjects to be precisely identified.
Law Enforcement Directive: Police must regularly review if they can justify continue storing biometric and genetic data and, if this isn't the case, grant erasure requests.
Great news for those who aren't fans of TIAs: the EUC upholds adequacy for Andorra, Argentina, Canada, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay. ✅
National law can implicitly determine controllership, including for an official journal that only publishes data it receives, even when it doesn't have a legal personality on its own. (But note my comment on this.)
Unauthorised disclosure or access doesn't equate to inadequate measures, but must be proven to prevent damages claims. National courts must assess your case concretely and cannot systematically rely on expert reports. Mere fear = non-material damages (but must be proven by the data subject).