AG Tour on DPA complaints (C-416/23 Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde - excessive requests)
Advocate General Opinion: The Art. 57(4) concept of 'requests' covers 'complaint' in 57(1)(f) and 77(1) and aren't 'excessive' just because there are many in a certain period; the DPA must show abusive intent, and can then charge a fee or refuse to act.
Sep 6, 2024
—
2 min read
You might also like
CJEU C-446/21 Schrems (Communication of data to the general public)
members
–
5 min read
UPDATED: No big surprises, nor new big takeaways, but this ruling sparks questions around 'strictly necessary' and 'purpose'. Ruling: Facebook can't indiscriminately use personal data on or off their platform for personalised ads, without restricting the duration and type of data.
CJEU C-169/23 Masdi
members
–
3 min read
UPDATED: First interpretation of the Art. 14(5)(c) derogation! It applies to *all* data not collected from the data subject, including self-generated data. And a DPA can verify national law under Art. 14(5)(c) - but not include Art. 32 obligations under that. And beware of language differences!
CJEU C-17/22 HTB Neunte Immobilien Portfolio
members
–
5 min read
UPDATED: National case-law could be relevant under Article 6(1)(c) legal obligation. And while we get some further guidance on legitimate interest assessments, the CJEU creates some confusion around 'strictly necessary' again.