If a DSAR is made solely to engineer a compensation claim rather than to verify lawful processing, it can be refused as abusive – even if it's the first request.
If public transport ticket inspectors process personal data using body cams, they must inform data subjects under Article 13 – not Article 14 – because the data's collected directly from the data subject.
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.
A Member State can't, under any circumstances, require a data subject to provide proof of gender reassignment surgery to exercise their right to rectification. However, they may need to provide relevant and sufficient evidence reasonably needed to show that the data is inaccurate.
All things right of access: Article 15 elements table, a handy flowchart, key CJEU rulings and Rie's practical guide (including how to deal with nightmare DSARs).
30 DPAs participated in EDPB's 2024 CEF action on the Right of access, involving 1185 controllers. 7 identified challenges like lack of documented procedures and requesting excessive ID docs. And more awareness is needed.
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.
The Art. 14(5)(c) derogation applies to *all* data not collected from the data subject, including self-generated. DPAs can, as per Art. 14(5)(c), verify if national law has measures to protect data subjects' legitimate interests, but this doesn’t include assessing Art. 32 security measures.