Article 3 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
Line 220: Line 220:
However, this concept is not "''without limit''" and cannot lead to the conclusion that a “''non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-191/15, ''Verein für Konsumenteninformation'', 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=182286&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref> Equally, the mere placement of data processing equipment in the EU is not an "''establishment''", as there is no human activity.  
However, this concept is not "''without limit''" and cannot lead to the conclusion that a “''non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-191/15, ''Verein für Konsumenteninformation'', 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=182286&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref> Equally, the mere placement of data processing equipment in the EU is not an "''establishment''", as there is no human activity.  


In conclusion, if a controller or processor established outside the Union exercises “''a real and effective activity - even a minimal one''” - through “''stable arrangements''”, regardless of its legal form (e.g. subsidiary, branch, office), in the territory of a Member State, this controller or processor can be considered to have an establishment in that Member State. <blockquote><u>Common Misunderstanding:</u> The location of the processing itself is irrelevant to determine the geographical scope of Article 3(1) GDPR. As explained by the EDPB, geographical location is only relevant to answer whether a controller or processor is established in- or outside the Union and whether a non-EU controller or processor has an establishment in the Union.</blockquote>
In conclusion, if a controller or processor established outside the Union exercises “''a real and effective activity - even a minimal one''” - through “''stable arrangements''”, regardless of its legal form (e.g. subsidiary, branch, office), in the territory of a Member State, this controller or processor can be considered to have an establishment in that Member State.<ref>''Klar'', in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 3 GDPR, margin number 46 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition)</ref> <blockquote><u>Common Misunderstanding:</u> The location of the processing itself is irrelevant to determine the geographical scope of Article 3(1) GDPR. As explained by the EDPB, geographical location is only relevant to answer whether a controller or processor is established in- or outside the Union and whether a non-EU controller or processor has an establishment in the Union.</blockquote>


==== Linking Processing and EU Establishment: “''in the context of the activities''” ====
==== Linking Processing and EU Establishment: “''in the context of the activities''” ====
Only an establishment in the Union is not relevant, if the establishment has no context with the processing. <blockquote><u>Example:</u> A Brazilian company operates in different areas. It has an IT operation that is only active in South America, but also owns a construction company in the EU. The IT operation does not fall under the GDPR, just because there is an unrelated establishment in the EU. </blockquote>Article 3(1) confirms that it is not necessary that the processing in question is carried out “by” the relevant EU establishment itself; the controller or processor will be subject to obligations under the GDPR whenever the processing is carried out “''in the context of the activities''” of its relevant establishment in the Union.   
Only an establishment in the Union is not relevant, if the establishment has no context with the processing. <blockquote><u>Example:</u> A Brazilian company operates in different areas. It has an IT operation that is only active in South America, but also owns a construction company in the EU. The IT operation does not fall under the GDPR, just because there is an unrelated establishment in the EU. </blockquote>Article 3(1) confirms that it is not necessary that the processing in question is carried out “by” the relevant EU establishment itself; the controller or processor will be subject to obligations under the GDPR whenever the processing is carried out “''in the context of the activities''” of its relevant establishment in the Union.   


The CJEU has followed a broad interpretation. In [[CJEU - C-210/16 - Wirtschaftsakademie|C-210/16 - ''Wirtschaftsakademie'']], the CJEU stated (with regard to Directive 95/46/EC) that processing carried out in the context of the activities of the controller’s establishment “''cannot be interpreted restrictively''” and that processing “''does not require that such processing be carried out ‘by’ the establishment concerned itself, but only that it be carried out ‘in the context of the activities of’ the establishment''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-210/16, ''Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH'', 5 June 2018, margin numbers 56-57 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=202543&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583) here]).</ref> [[CJEU - C‑230/14 - Weltimmo|C‑230/14 - ''Weltimmo'']] confirmed that the concept “''cannot be interpreted restrictively''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,''Weltimmo'', 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=168944&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref>
The CJEU has followed a broad interpretation. In [[CJEU - C-210/16 - Wirtschaftsakademie|C-210/16 - ''Wirtschaftsakademie'']], the CJEU stated (with regard to Directive 95/46/EC) that processing carried out in the context of the activities of the controller’s establishment “''cannot be interpreted restrictively''” and that processing “''does not require that such processing be carried out ‘by’ the establishment concerned itself, but only that it be carried out ‘in the context of the activities of’ the establishment''”.<ref name=":0">CJEU, Case C131/12 ''Google Spain'' 13 May 2014 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=6D00A24D093BED699922F94A485E59AD?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=594393 here]).</ref> [[CJEU - C‑230/14 - Weltimmo|C‑230/14 - ''Weltimmo'']] confirmed that the concept “''cannot be interpreted restrictively''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,''Weltimmo'', 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=168944&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref><blockquote><u>Example:</u> Google US had a sales office in Spain, selling advertisement of the US mother company. The local office was not itself processing personal data of users. Nevertheless, the CJEU found that this was an establishment sufficiently linked with the search engine to make Directive 95/46/EG applicable.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>EDPB Guidelines suggests that two factors may help in determining whether processing occurs in the context of an establishment in the Union:
 
EDPB Guidelines suggests that two factors may help in determining whether processing occurs in the context of an establishment in the Union:


* The first one is the relationship between the non-EU entity and its local establishment in the Union. If a case-by-case analysis on the facts shows that there is an “''inextricable link''” between the processing of personal data carried out by a non-EU controller or processor and the activities of an EU establishment, EU law will apply to that processing by the non-EU entity, whether or not the EU establishment plays a role in that processing of data.  
* The first one is the relationship between the non-EU entity and its local establishment in the Union. If a case-by-case analysis on the facts shows that there is an “''inextricable link''” between the processing of personal data carried out by a non-EU controller or processor and the activities of an EU establishment, EU law will apply to that processing by the non-EU entity, whether or not the EU establishment plays a role in that processing of data.  

Revision as of 18:12, 14 January 2023

Article 3: Territorial scope
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 3 - Territorial scope

1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.

2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:

(a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or
(b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.

3. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 14: Not Applicable to Legal Persons
The protection afforded by this Regulation should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of their personal data. This Regulation does not cover the processing of personal data which concerns legal persons and in particular undertakings established as legal persons, including the name and the form of the legal person and the contact details of the legal person.

Recital 22: Processing Activities by an Establishment
Any processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union should be carried out in accordance with this Regulation, regardless of whether the processing itself takes place within the Union. Establishment implies the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements. The legal form of such arrangements, whether through a branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the determining factor in that respect.

Recital 23: Applicable if Targeting EU Data Subjects
In order to ensure that natural persons are not deprived of the protection to which they are entitled under this Regulation, the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or a processor not established in the Union should be subject to this Regulation where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to such data subjects irrespective of whether connected to a payment. In order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union. Whereas the mere accessibility of the controller's, processor's or an intermediary's website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention, factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.

Recital 24: Applicable if Monitoring EU Data Subjects
The processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union should also be subject to this Regulation when it is related to the monitoring of the behaviour of such data subjects in so far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. In order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.

Recital 25: Applicable When Member State Law is Applicable
Where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law, this Regulation should also apply to a controller not established in the Union, such as in a Member State's diplomatic mission or consular post.

Recital 80: Designated Representative
Where a controller or a processor not established in the Union is processing personal data of data subjects who are in the Union whose processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union, or to the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union, the controller or the processor should designate a representative, unless the processing is occasional, does not include processing, on a large scale, of special categories of personal data or the processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, and is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, taking into account the nature, context, scope and purposes of the processing or if the controller is a public authority or body. The representative should act on behalf of the controller or the processor and may be addressed by any supervisory authority. The representative should be explicitly designated by a written mandate of the controller or of the processor to act on its behalf with regard to its obligations under this Regulation. The designation of such a representative does not affect the responsibility or liability of the controller or of the processor under this Regulation. Such a representative should perform its tasks according to the mandate received from the controller or processor, including cooperating with the competent supervisory authorities with regard to any action taken to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The designated representative should be subject to enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the controller or processor.

Recital 122: Competence of Supervisory Authorities
Each supervisory authority should be competent on the territory of its own Member State to exercise the powers and to perform the tasks conferred on it in accordance with this Regulation. This should cover in particular the processing in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller or processor on the territory of its own Member State, the processing of personal data carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest, processing affecting data subjects on its territory or processing carried out by a controller or processor not established in the Union when targeting data subjects residing on its territory. This should include handling complaints lodged by a data subject, conducting investigations on the application of this Regulation and promoting public awareness of the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to the processing of personal data.

Commentary

The first two paragraphs of Article 3 GDPR define the territorial scope of the Regulation on the basis of two main criteria:

  • the establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union or
  • being active on the EU market by offering services or goods or monitoring behavior.

Where one of these two criteria is met, the relevant provisions of the GDPR will apply to the processing of personal data.

The third paragraph confirms the application of the GDPR to processing activities to which “Member State law applies by virtue of public international law”,[1] such as an embassy of an EU Member State in a third country.

(1) Establishment in the Union

The GDPR does not provide a definition of “establishment” for the purpose of Article 3.

Establishment of a Controller in the Union

The application of this provision is depending on two rather broad concepts: the "controller", which may include natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body (see details under Article 4(7) GDPR) and one or more "establishments" of said controller in the Union.

Common Misunderstanding: It is important to note that the GDPR, like other EU law, merely uses the term "Union", even if the GDPR applies to the entire European Economic Area (EEA), which includes not only the 27 EU Member States, but also Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. EU law, including the GDPR, may also apply to overseas territories of Member States. The details differ per territory.

An "establishment" must not be equivalent with a separate legal entity in the European Union. It may also be just an office or other form of activity in the Union. Recital 22 states that the “[e]stablishment implies the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements. The legal form of such arrangements, whether through a branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the determining factor in that respect”.[2] According to the European Data Protection Board, "[t]his wording is identical to that found in Recital 19 of Directive 95/46/EC, to which reference has been made in several CJEU rulings broadening the interpretation of the term “establishment”, departing from a formalistic approach whereby undertakings are established solely in the place where they are registered".[3] In particular, in C‑230/14 - Weltimmo the CJEU extended the definition of establishment “to any real and effective activity - even a minimal one - exercised through stable arrangements”.[4]

Example: A subsidiary of a US car manufacturer in Belgium supervises its European activities, including marketing and advertising. The Belgian subsidiary operates through a "stable arrangement" since it carries out activities which are genuine and instrumental to the main economic activity of the US headquarters. As such, it can be seen as an "establishment" under the GDPR.[5]

The EDPB pointed out that the threshold for “stable arrangement” is quite low. Indeed, it could be met by the simple presence of a single employee or agent of a non-EU entity in the Union - if that employee or agent acts with a sufficient degree of stability.

However, this concept is not "without limit" and cannot lead to the conclusion that a “non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union”.[6] Equally, the mere placement of data processing equipment in the EU is not an "establishment", as there is no human activity.

In conclusion, if a controller or processor established outside the Union exercises “a real and effective activity - even a minimal one” - through “stable arrangements”, regardless of its legal form (e.g. subsidiary, branch, office), in the territory of a Member State, this controller or processor can be considered to have an establishment in that Member State.[7]

Common Misunderstanding: The location of the processing itself is irrelevant to determine the geographical scope of Article 3(1) GDPR. As explained by the EDPB, geographical location is only relevant to answer whether a controller or processor is established in- or outside the Union and whether a non-EU controller or processor has an establishment in the Union.

Linking Processing and EU Establishment: “in the context of the activities

Only an establishment in the Union is not relevant, if the establishment has no context with the processing.

Example: A Brazilian company operates in different areas. It has an IT operation that is only active in South America, but also owns a construction company in the EU. The IT operation does not fall under the GDPR, just because there is an unrelated establishment in the EU.

Article 3(1) confirms that it is not necessary that the processing in question is carried out “by” the relevant EU establishment itself; the controller or processor will be subject to obligations under the GDPR whenever the processing is carried out “in the context of the activities” of its relevant establishment in the Union. The CJEU has followed a broad interpretation. In C-210/16 - Wirtschaftsakademie, the CJEU stated (with regard to Directive 95/46/EC) that processing carried out in the context of the activities of the controller’s establishment “cannot be interpreted restrictively” and that processing “does not require that such processing be carried out ‘by’ the establishment concerned itself, but only that it be carried out ‘in the context of the activities of’ the establishment”.[8] C‑230/14 - Weltimmo confirmed that the concept “cannot be interpreted restrictively”.[9]

Example: Google US had a sales office in Spain, selling advertisement of the US mother company. The local office was not itself processing personal data of users. Nevertheless, the CJEU found that this was an establishment sufficiently linked with the search engine to make Directive 95/46/EG applicable.[8]

EDPB Guidelines suggests that two factors may help in determining whether processing occurs in the context of an establishment in the Union:

  • The first one is the relationship between the non-EU entity and its local establishment in the Union. If a case-by-case analysis on the facts shows that there is an “inextricable link” between the processing of personal data carried out by a non-EU controller or processor and the activities of an EU establishment, EU law will apply to that processing by the non-EU entity, whether or not the EU establishment plays a role in that processing of data.
  • The second factor concerns whether or not the local establishment in the EU contributes to the revenues of the non-EU entity. This may potentially be the case, for example, for any foreign operator with a sales office or some other presence in the EU, even if that office has no role in the actual data processing, in particular where the processing takes place in the context of the sales activity in the EU and the activities of the establishment are aimed at the inhabitants of the Member States in which the establishment is located.[10]

At the same time, the EDPB has stated that this requirement should not be interpreted too broadly to conclude that the existence of any presence in the EU with even the remotest links to the data processing activities of a non-EU entity will be sufficient to bring this processing within the scope of EU data protection law.

Example: When an employee is based in the EU but the processing is not being carried out in the context of the activities of the EU-based employee in the Union (i.e. the processing relates to activities of the controller outside the EU), the mere presence of an employee in the EU will not result in that processing falling within the scope of the GDPR.[11]

(2) Activity on the Union's Market

Data Subject located in the Union

If the controller or the processor is not established in the EU, the GDPR can nonetheless be triggered if personal data of individuals located in the Union are being processed.

Example: A Chinese citizen is located in Berlin. If her behavior gets monitored by an app, the GDPR applies.

In light of Recital 14 GDPR and the EDPB guidelines, the targeting criterion covers any natural person located in the Union to the extent that they are subject to processing as described in Article 3(2)(a) and (b) GDPR.

Common Misunderstanding: The application of the GDPR does in no way depend on the citizenship of data subjects. Given that the fundamental right to data protection under Article 8 of the Charter is a human right, it applies to all humans equally.

The requirement that the data subject be located in the Union must be assessed at the moment in time when the relevant trigger activity takes place, such as the moment when goods or services are offered, or the moment when the behavior of the data subject is being monitored (letters (a) and (b) below). The processing activities related to data subjects in the Union must have taken place intentionally, rather than inadvertently or incidentally.[12]

Relation with Offering of Goods or Services or the Monitoring of Behaviour

Just having a data subject that is located in the Union is however not enough. In addition, the processing has to "relate to" one of two alternatives to make the GDPR applicable. Merely relating to an activity is again calling for a wide interpretation. The processing must not be "aimed at", be "necessary for" or alike, but must merely "relate to" one of the following activities:

(a) Offering of Goods or Services

The concept of "goods and services" has been clarified in EU law (e.g. Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market) and case law, inter alia on the interpretation of Articles 28 to 37 and 56 to 62 TFEU. “Goods” are products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial and lawful transactions.[13]Services” are activities developed by the provider and directed to a recipient, typically for remuneration.[14] This includes “any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”,[15] as also supported by the EDPB.[16]

Example: An online shop from Chile offers products worldwide. Products are offered to anyone in the EU and the goods are shipped to European addresses. The GDPR applies to this online shop.

Recital 23 GDPR confirms that the mere possibility that a controller’s or processor’s website can be visited is not in itself sufficient to prove intention to offer goods or services. In relation to the previous Directive 95/46/EC this was also confirmed in C-191/15 - Verein für Konsumenteninformation, where the CJEU held that merely being able to access a website in a Member State is not enough to lead to an "establishment" of the controller or processor in that Member State.[17] Therefore, there must be a somewhat substantial offer to data subjects in the Union.

Example: The website of a local newspaper in Canada can be accessed from the EU. The newspaper only covers local stories, does not offer subscriptions outside of the local province and does not have advertisement aimed a EU residents. The GDPR does nor apply to the local newspaper. At the same time a major global newspaper like the New York Times would clearly (also) serve the European market and must apply the GDPR in relation to data subjects based in the EU.

Contrary to the usual definition of good and services, the GDPR clarifies that processing is covered "irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required". This is intended to ensure that many free services that use personal data as an alternative revenue stream are also covered by the GDPR, if these services are offered on the European market.

Example: A small online games provider from Turkey offers a game that is free to use and makes profits with advertisement in the game. It is very popular in Germany among the large Turkish diaspora. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data of these users.

(b) The Monitoring of Data Subjects' Behaviour

The GDPR also becomes applicable if the behaviour of persons based in the EU is monitored. This is especially relevant for online advertisement and other business models that are based on user tracking.

The monitoring of data subjects’ behaviour is not defined in the GDPR. Recital 24 GDPR nevertheless clarifies that “[i]n order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.” The EDPB has expanded the scope of this to include not only tracking of a person on the internet, but also tracking through other kinds of network or technologies which involve personal data processing, so for instance, tracking through the use of wearables or smart devices.[18]

(3) Public International Law

The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union if the Member State’s legislation applies by virtue of public international law. Recital 25 GDPR gives the example of processing taking place in a “Member State’s diplomatic mission or consular post”. The EDPB gives as a further example the case of a German cruise ship travelling in international waters. By virtue of public international law, the GDPR will apply even though the ship is in international waters.[19]

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 3 GDPR

References

  1. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 4 (available here).
  2. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here).
  3. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here).
  4. CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,Weltimmo, 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available here).
  5. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 7 (available here).
  6. CJEU, Case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available here).
  7. Klar, in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 3 GDPR, margin number 46 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition)
  8. 8.0 8.1 CJEU, Case C131/12 Google Spain 13 May 2014 (available here).
  9. CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,Weltimmo, 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available here).
  10. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here).
  11. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6-7 (available here).
  12. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), pp. 14-15 (available here). This is also confirmed by Recital 23 GDPR, which states that “in order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.”
  13. E.g. CJEU, Case C-7/68, Commission v Italy, 10 December 1968 (available here); CJEU, Case C-50/80, Horvath, 5 February 1981 (available here); CJEU, Case C-421/09, Humanplasma, 9 December 2010 (available here).
  14. CJEU, Case C-263/86, Humbel and Edel, 27 September 1988 (available here).
  15. Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (available here).
  16. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 16 (available here) referring to Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (available here).
  17. CJEU, Case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available here).
  18. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 19 (available here).
  19. EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 19 (available here).