CJEU - C‑456/22 - Gemeinde Ummendorf: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The CJEU decided that Article 82(1) precludes | The CJEU decided that Article 82(1) GDPR precludes national legislation or practice which sets a ''deminimis'' threshold to establish non-material damages under the GDPR. | ||
==English Summary== | ==English Summary== | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
In June 2020 | In June 2020 the Municipality of Ummendorf published meeting minutes and judgement by the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen on their website. The meeting minutes contained the names of a data subject and the judgement their names and address of domocile. Interestingly, the names of the other parties within the judgement had already been redacted by the municipality before uploading it to their website. | ||
The Data subject claimed damages under Article 82(1) GDPR and argued that no deminimis threshold should be applied. The DPA argued that Article 82(1) requires proof of noticeable disadvatnage and objective comprehensible impairment of personal interests. For a non-material damage to exist, the ''deminimis'' threshold must be exceeded. | |||
The case was appealed to the Ravensburg Regional Court who reffered one question to the CJEU: | |||
1) Does Article 82(1) GDPR require noticeable disadvantage and comprehensible impairment of personal interests from the data subjest, or is the mere short-term loss of control over their personal data for a few days which did not have a noticeable consequence sufficient for non-material damages? | |||
=== Holding === | === Holding === | ||
The CJEU decided that Article 82(1) GDPR must override any national legislation which establishes a deminimis threshold. | |||
First, | |||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
Revision as of 16:37, 30 January 2024
| CJEU - Case C‑456/22 Gemeinde Ummendorf | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | CJEU |
| Jurisdiction: | European Union |
| Relevant Law: | Article 82(1) GDPR |
| Decided: | |
| Parties: | |
| Case Number/Name: | Case C‑456/22 Gemeinde Ummendorf |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EU:C:2023:988 |
| Reference from: | |
| Language: | 24 EU Languages |
| Original Source: | Judgement |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The CJEU decided that Article 82(1) GDPR precludes national legislation or practice which sets a deminimis threshold to establish non-material damages under the GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
In June 2020 the Municipality of Ummendorf published meeting minutes and judgement by the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen on their website. The meeting minutes contained the names of a data subject and the judgement their names and address of domocile. Interestingly, the names of the other parties within the judgement had already been redacted by the municipality before uploading it to their website.
The Data subject claimed damages under Article 82(1) GDPR and argued that no deminimis threshold should be applied. The DPA argued that Article 82(1) requires proof of noticeable disadvatnage and objective comprehensible impairment of personal interests. For a non-material damage to exist, the deminimis threshold must be exceeded.
The case was appealed to the Ravensburg Regional Court who reffered one question to the CJEU:
1) Does Article 82(1) GDPR require noticeable disadvantage and comprehensible impairment of personal interests from the data subjest, or is the mere short-term loss of control over their personal data for a few days which did not have a noticeable consequence sufficient for non-material damages?
Holding
The CJEU decided that Article 82(1) GDPR must override any national legislation which establishes a deminimis threshold.
First,
Comment
h
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
