GDPR offers no judicial remedy outside erasure requests to stop future unlawful processing, but Member States may. Non-material damage covers negative feelings – if proven. A controller’s fault doesn’t affect compensation, and a court order banning repeat GDPR violations can’t reduce or replace it.
Tag, you're it! Got personal data --> you're a controller and can't shift accountability to the data subject. Temporary loss of control (e.g. public disclosure) can lead to damage, but harm must be proven. Handwritten signatures = personal data.
EDPB SPE project: Article 60 One-Stop-Shop thematic case digest analysing Articles 17 and 21. Key takeaway: Create, document, implement and control policies and procedures, including complaints management. PS: The 'data subject journey' is your secret weapon!
Consent is required to list subscribers' details in publicly available directories. If obtained, including on behalf of other controllers, a data subject can withdraw it (= an erasure request) from any of them, and each controller may need to inform the others.
DPAs can order controllers to delete unlawfully processed data without a prior request from a data subject, and regardless of where the data came from (the data subject or elsewhere).
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.