CJEU - C‑507/23 - PTAC

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 06:27, 8 October 2024 by Wp (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{CJEUdecisionBOX |Case_Number_Name=C‑507/23 PTAC |ECLI=ECLI:EU:C:2024:854 |Opinion_Link= |Judgement_Link=https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=E33F03FD9E91CB174C5CF434D91888EC?text=&docid=290709&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=686114 |Date_Decided=04.10.2024 |Year=2024 |GDPR_Article_1=Article 82 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 82 GDPR |GDPR_Article_2=Article 82(1) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 82 GDPR#1 |GDP...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
CJEU - C‑507/23 PTAC
Cjeulogo.png
Court: CJEU
Jurisdiction: European Union
Relevant Law: Article 82 GDPR
Article 82(1) GDPR
Article 83 GDPR
Article 84 GDPR
Article 14 Valsts pārvaldes iestāžu nodarīto zaudējumu atlīdzināšanas likums (Law on compensation for damage caused by public authorities)
Decided: 04.10.2024
Parties: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
Case Number/Name: C‑507/23 PTAC
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2024:854
Reference from: AT (Senāts) (Latvia)
Language: 24 EU Languages
Original Source: Judgement
Initial Contributor: wp

The CJEU found an apology may be a sufficient compensation of non-material damage suffered by a data subject.

English Summary

Facts

A data subject's image was used by the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs - PTAC) in their campaign.

Advocate General Opinion

The CJEU decided to proceed the case without Advocate General opinion.

Holding

The CJUE answered three preliminary questions.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!