Article 88 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
Line 185: Line 185:


== Legal Text ==
== Legal Text ==
<br /><center>'''Article 88 - Processing in the context of employment'''</center><br />
<br /><center>'''Article 88 - Processing in the context of employment'''</center><span id="1">1.  Member States may, by law or by collective agreements, provide for more specific rules to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees' personal data in the employment context, in particular for the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge of obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organisation of work, equality and diversity in the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employer's or customer's property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship.</span>
 
<span id="1">1.  Member States may, by law or by collective agreements, provide for more specific rules to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees' personal data in the employment context, in particular for the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge of obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organisation of work, equality and diversity in the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employer's or customer's property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship.</span>


<span id="2">2.  Those rules shall include suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject's human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, the transfer of personal data within a group of undertakings, or a group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity and monitoring systems at the work place.</span>
<span id="2">2.  Those rules shall include suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject's human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, the transfer of personal data within a group of undertakings, or a group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity and monitoring systems at the work place.</span>
Line 200: Line 198:


=== (1) List of Matters  ===
=== (1) List of Matters  ===
Article 88(1) GDPR lists the matters that Member States may regulate in the context of the processing of employees' personal data. This is not an exhaustive list, and therefore Member States have the freedom to regulate additional matters. As noted under the section 'Notification to the Commission' below, several Member States have already regulated matters that were not expressly listed in Article 88, such as video surveillance in the work place.
Article 88(1) GDPR lists the matters that Member States may regulate in the context of the processing of employees' personal data. This list includes processing of individuals personal data <span id="1">for the purposes of recruitment, performance of employment contracts, management, planning and organisation of work, equality and diversity in the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employer's or customer's property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment of social benefits in the course of employment or after the termination of the employment relationship</span>.
 
This list is not exhaustive, and therefore Member States have the freedom to regulate additional matters. As noted under the section 'Notification to the Commission' below, several Member States have already regulated matters that were not expressly listed in Article 88, such as video surveillance in the work place.


=== (2) GDPR Equivalent ===
=== (2) GDPR Equivalent ===
Article 88(2) GDPR obliges Member States, when they regulate matters related to employment data, to include in their provisions suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject's human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, the transfer of personal data within a group of undertakings, or a group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity and monitoring systems in the work place.
Article 88(2) GDPR obliges Member States, when they regulate matters related to employment data, to include in their provisions suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject's human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, the transfer of personal data within a group of undertakings, or a group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity and monitoring systems in the work place.


Therefore, Article 88 allows Member States to pass national laws as long as they are in line with the GDPR. Although this is already a consequence deriving from the primacy of EU Regulations over national law, the GDPR opts for a clear mandate that seeks to ensure the protection of employee data. Hence, the GDPR requirements are a minimum standard for Member States, but there is no impediment for a Member State to include stricter safeguards.
Therefore, Article 88 GDPR allows Member States to adopt national laws on the processing of employment data as long as they are in line with the GDPR. Although this is already a consequence deriving from the primacy of EU law over national law, the GDPR opts for a clear mandate that seeks to ensure the protection of employee data. Hence, the GDPR requirements are a minimum standard for Member States, but there is no impediment for a Member State to include stricter safeguards.
 
==== Meaning of Employment or Employees ====
The terms “employment” or “employee” are not defined in the GDPR. Although there is therefore no clear definition of what both terms include,  the WP29 issued an Opinion,<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context, 13 September 2001 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2001/wp48_en.pdf here]); Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/610169/en here]).</ref> according to which there must be a certain degree of dependence between the employer and the employee , which would exclude self-employed workers.<ref>See also ''Selk'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 88 GDPR, margin numbers 41-50 (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>
 
Since Article 88(1) GDPR specifically refers to the processing of personal data which may take place at the stage of recruitment or after an employment relationship has been terminated, it can inferred from that provisions that job applicants as well as ex-employees can also be protected by specific rules at the national level with respect to the processing of their personal data by a potential or ex-employer.


==== Meaning of Employment ====
Also, since Article 88 GDPR does not distinguish between public and private employment, it can be deduced that both private employees and public servants are concerned.
The terms “employment” or “employee” are not defined in this Article nor in the GDPR. Although there is therefore no clear definition of what both terms include, following the Opinions issued by the WP29,<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context, 13 September 2001 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2001/wp48_en.pdf here]); Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/610169/en here]).</ref> there shall be a certain degree of dependence on the employer from the employee side, which would exclude self-employed workers.<ref>See also ''Selk'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 88 GDPR, margin numbers 41-50 (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref> Secondly, as the Article does not distinguish between public and private employment, public servants can be considered to be included.
==== Specific Considerations ====
==== Specific Considerations ====
The WP29, in its Opinion on the processing of personal data in the employment context<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context, 13 September 2001 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2001/wp48_en.pdf here]).</ref> makes particular reference to consent in the context of an employment relationship. Consent, according to [[Article 7 GDPR]], must be freely given. However, an imbalance of power exists in an employment relationship, meaning that employer and employee are never on the same level. Therefore, consent may not be freely given, but coerced because of the nature of such relationship, or because the employee may fear the consequences of refusing to give consent. Employees shall not rely on consent but on a legitimate interest or other legal basis.
The WP29, in its Opinion on the processing of personal data in the employment context<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context, 13 September 2001 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2001/wp48_en.pdf here]).</ref> makes particular reference to consent in the context of an employment relationship. Consent, according to [[Article 7 GDPR]], must be freely given. However, an imbalance of power exists in an employment relationship, meaning that employer and employee are never on the same level. Therefore, consent should bot be regarded as an appropriate legal basis under [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6]] or [[Article 9 GDPR]] because of the nature of such a relationship, and in particular because the employee may fear the consequences of refusing to give consent. Employers should therefore rely on another legal basis for processing the personal data of their employees, such as the necessity to perform the employment contract, or the existence of a legal obligation to do so.


The WP29 also establishes certain transparency requirements for the employer when processing employee data.<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/610169/en here]).</ref> Employees shall be fully aware of every processing activity regarding their data. The employer shall provide their employees with clear information when monitoring takes place, including the circumstances of such monitoring and possibilities to prevent their data being processed by monitoring technologies.<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/610169/en here]).</ref>
The WP29 also establishes certain transparency requirements for the employer when processing employee data.<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/610169/en here]).</ref> Employees should be made fully aware of every processing activity regarding their data. The employer should in particular provide their employees with clear information when monitoring takes place, including the circumstances of such monitoring and possibilities to prevent their data being processed by monitoring technologies.<ref>Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/610169/en here]).</ref>


Regarding transfers of data within the same group of companies, [[Article 48 GDPR|Article 48]] specifies that a controller may rely on legitimate interest to transfer data for processing by a different controller within the same group. However, in any case, legitimate interest shall be carefully assessed to ensure that the interests of the data subject are respected and do not override the interest of the controller.<ref>See also ''Selk'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 88 GDPR, margin numbers 175-177 (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>
Regarding transfers of data within the same group of companies, [[Article 48 GDPR]] specifies that a controller may rely on a legitimate interest to transfer employment data to a different controller within the same group. However, in any case, legitimate interest shall be carefully assessed to ensure that the interests of the data subject are respected and do not override the interest of the controller.<ref>See also ''Selk'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 88 GDPR, margin numbers 175-177 (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>


==== Case Law ====
==== Case Law ====
The CJEU has to this date dealt with several cases regarding the processing of personal data in the context of employment.<ref>''Van Eecke, Simkus'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 88 GDPR, pp. 1232-1233 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> The Rundfonk case<ref>CJEU, Osterreichischer Rundfank, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, 20 May 2003 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=48331&doclang=EN here]). </ref> concerned the public disclosure of information regarding the salaries of employees in the public sector, based on public interest. The CJEU ruled that interferences in these employees' data protection rights could be legitimate if they pursued a legitimate aim and were proportional. The Worten case,<ref>CJEU, Worten, C-342-12, 30 May 2013 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=137824&pageIndex=0&doclang=CS&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4307987 here]). </ref> concerned the transfer of the working times of employees to a national authority responsible fopr monitoring working conditions. The CJEU stated that the working times were considered personal data, as they can be related to an identifiable person, and that in order to make them available to a third party, they must be necessary to perform the monitoring task imposed to the public authority.
The CJEU has to this date dealt with several cases regarding the processing of personal data in the context of employment.<ref>''Van Eecke, Simkus'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 88 GDPR, pp. 1232-1233 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> The Rundfunk case<ref>CJEU, Osterreichischer Rundfank, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, 20 May 2003 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=48331&doclang=EN here]). </ref> concerned the public disclosure of information regarding the salaries of employees in the public sector, based on public interest. The CJEU ruled that an interference in these employees' data protection rights could be valid if they pursued a legitimate aim and were proportionate to the aim pursued. The Worten case<ref>CJEU, Worten, C-342-12, 30 May 2013 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=137824&pageIndex=0&doclang=CS&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4307987 here]). </ref> concerned the transfer of the working times of employees to a national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions. The CJEU stated that the working times of these employees were falling within the definition of personal data, as they can be related to an identifiable person, and that in order to make them available to a third party, they must be necessary to perform the monitoring task imposed to the public authority.


Currently, questions regarding distance learning and the data privacy implications, including the processing of personal data of employees for videoconferencing, have been referred to the CJEU for consultation by a German administrative court.<ref>VG Wiesbaden, 23 K 1360/20.WI.PV, 21 December 2021 (available [https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/LARE210000164 here]). </ref>
Currently, questions regarding distance learning and the data privacy implications, including the processing of personal data of employees for videoconferencing, have been referred to the CJEU for consultation by a German administrative court.<ref>VG Wiesbaden, 23 K 1360/20.WI.PV, 21 December 2021 (available [https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/LARE210000164 here]). </ref> These cases are still pending.


=== (3) Notification to the Commission ===
=== (3) Notification to the Commission ===
According to Article 88(3), Member States shall notify the Commission about any provisions in their national law pursuant to this Article. Currently, Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Åland’s Finish province, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia have issued notifications in this regard.<ref>European Commission, EU Member States notification to the European Commission under the GDPR (available [https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-eu/eu-countries-gdpr-specific-notifications_en here]).</ref>
According to Article 88(3) GDPR, Member States must notify the Commission about any provisions in their national law pursuant to this Article. Currently, Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Åland’s Finish province, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia have issued notifications in this regard.<ref>European Commission, EU Member States notification to the European Commission under the GDPR (available [https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-eu/eu-countries-gdpr-specific-notifications_en here]).</ref>


For example, Italy makes reference in its national law to remote and home-work, compelling the employer to respect the employee's personality and moral freedom.<ref>Italy notification GDPR articles 49(5), 51(4), 83(9), 84(2), 85(3), 88(3), 90(2) (available [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/it_notification_art_49_51_83_84_85_88_90.pdf here]) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>  
For example, Italy makes reference in its national law on remote and home-work, compelling the employer to respect the employee's personality and moral freedom.<ref>Italy notification GDPR articles 49(5), 51(4), 83(9), 84(2), 85(3), 88(3), 90(2) (available [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/it_notification_art_49_51_83_84_85_88_90.pdf here]) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>  


Slovakian law contains a provision that allows the employer to publish the data of its employees when it is necessary for the fulfilment of the jobs, providing that respect, dignity and safety of the data subject are respected.<ref>Slovakia notification GDPR articles 51(4), 85(3), 88(3) (available [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/sk_notification_51.4_85.3_88.3_publish_0.pdf. here]) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>  
Slovakian law contains a provision that allows the employer to publish the data of its employees when it is necessary for the fulfilment of the jobs, providing that respect, dignity and safety of the data subject are respected.<ref>Slovakia notification GDPR articles 51(4), 85(3), 88(3) (available [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/sk_notification_51.4_85.3_88.3_publish_0.pdf. here]) (accessed 30 April 2021).</ref>  

Revision as of 14:17, 29 November 2021

Article 88 - Processing in the context of employment
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 88 - Processing in the context of employment

1. Member States may, by law or by collective agreements, provide for more specific rules to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees' personal data in the employment context, in particular for the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge of obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organisation of work, equality and diversity in the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employer's or customer's property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship.

2. Those rules shall include suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject's human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, the transfer of personal data within a group of undertakings, or a group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity and monitoring systems at the work place.

3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission those provisions of its law which it adopts pursuant to paragraph 1, by 25 May 2018 and, without delay, any subsequent amendment affecting them.

Relevant Recital

Recital 155: Processing of Employees' Personal Data
Member State law or collective agreements, including ‘works agreements’, may provide for specific rules on the processing of employees' personal data in the employment context, in particular for the conditions under which personal data in the employment context may be processed on the basis of the consent of the employee, the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge of obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organisation of work, equality and diversity in the workplace, health and safety at work, and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship.

Commentary

Article 88 GDPR offers to Member States the possibility to regulate the processing of data in the context of employment beyond the general framework of the GDPR. Article 88 GDPR lists possible matters to be regulated (Article 88(1) GDPR), sets certain requirements regarding the standards enshrined in the GDPR (Article 88(2) GDPR) and imposes an obligation on Member States to notify the Commission of the provisions of national law regulating the processing of employees' data (Article 88(3) GDPR).

(1) List of Matters

Article 88(1) GDPR lists the matters that Member States may regulate in the context of the processing of employees' personal data. This list includes processing of individuals personal data for the purposes of recruitment, performance of employment contracts, management, planning and organisation of work, equality and diversity in the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employer's or customer's property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment of social benefits in the course of employment or after the termination of the employment relationship.

This list is not exhaustive, and therefore Member States have the freedom to regulate additional matters. As noted under the section 'Notification to the Commission' below, several Member States have already regulated matters that were not expressly listed in Article 88, such as video surveillance in the work place.

(2) GDPR Equivalent

Article 88(2) GDPR obliges Member States, when they regulate matters related to employment data, to include in their provisions suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject's human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, the transfer of personal data within a group of undertakings, or a group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity and monitoring systems in the work place.

Therefore, Article 88 GDPR allows Member States to adopt national laws on the processing of employment data as long as they are in line with the GDPR. Although this is already a consequence deriving from the primacy of EU law over national law, the GDPR opts for a clear mandate that seeks to ensure the protection of employee data. Hence, the GDPR requirements are a minimum standard for Member States, but there is no impediment for a Member State to include stricter safeguards.

Meaning of Employment or Employees

The terms “employment” or “employee” are not defined in the GDPR. Although there is therefore no clear definition of what both terms include, the WP29 issued an Opinion,[1] according to which there must be a certain degree of dependence between the employer and the employee , which would exclude self-employed workers.[2]

Since Article 88(1) GDPR specifically refers to the processing of personal data which may take place at the stage of recruitment or after an employment relationship has been terminated, it can inferred from that provisions that job applicants as well as ex-employees can also be protected by specific rules at the national level with respect to the processing of their personal data by a potential or ex-employer.

Also, since Article 88 GDPR does not distinguish between public and private employment, it can be deduced that both private employees and public servants are concerned.

Specific Considerations

The WP29, in its Opinion on the processing of personal data in the employment context[3] makes particular reference to consent in the context of an employment relationship. Consent, according to Article 7 GDPR, must be freely given. However, an imbalance of power exists in an employment relationship, meaning that employer and employee are never on the same level. Therefore, consent should bot be regarded as an appropriate legal basis under Article 6 or Article 9 GDPR because of the nature of such a relationship, and in particular because the employee may fear the consequences of refusing to give consent. Employers should therefore rely on another legal basis for processing the personal data of their employees, such as the necessity to perform the employment contract, or the existence of a legal obligation to do so.

The WP29 also establishes certain transparency requirements for the employer when processing employee data.[4] Employees should be made fully aware of every processing activity regarding their data. The employer should in particular provide their employees with clear information when monitoring takes place, including the circumstances of such monitoring and possibilities to prevent their data being processed by monitoring technologies.[5]

Regarding transfers of data within the same group of companies, Article 48 GDPR specifies that a controller may rely on a legitimate interest to transfer employment data to a different controller within the same group. However, in any case, legitimate interest shall be carefully assessed to ensure that the interests of the data subject are respected and do not override the interest of the controller.[6]

Case Law

The CJEU has to this date dealt with several cases regarding the processing of personal data in the context of employment.[7] The Rundfunk case[8] concerned the public disclosure of information regarding the salaries of employees in the public sector, based on public interest. The CJEU ruled that an interference in these employees' data protection rights could be valid if they pursued a legitimate aim and were proportionate to the aim pursued. The Worten case[9] concerned the transfer of the working times of employees to a national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions. The CJEU stated that the working times of these employees were falling within the definition of personal data, as they can be related to an identifiable person, and that in order to make them available to a third party, they must be necessary to perform the monitoring task imposed to the public authority.

Currently, questions regarding distance learning and the data privacy implications, including the processing of personal data of employees for videoconferencing, have been referred to the CJEU for consultation by a German administrative court.[10] These cases are still pending.

(3) Notification to the Commission

According to Article 88(3) GDPR, Member States must notify the Commission about any provisions in their national law pursuant to this Article. Currently, Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Åland’s Finish province, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia have issued notifications in this regard.[11]

For example, Italy makes reference in its national law on remote and home-work, compelling the employer to respect the employee's personality and moral freedom.[12]

Slovakian law contains a provision that allows the employer to publish the data of its employees when it is necessary for the fulfilment of the jobs, providing that respect, dignity and safety of the data subject are respected.[13]

Irish national law additionally refers to the processing of special categories of personal data for purposes of employment and social welfare law.[14]

France has included in its national law provisions regarding video surveillance in the work place, individual information about salaries, or pay slip processing.[15]

Germany's Federal law regulates employee consent, special categories of data, video surveillance, the processing of employee data documentation, and the compensation of employees for data breaches.[16]

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 88 GDPR

References

  1. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context, 13 September 2001 (available here); Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available here).
  2. See also Selk, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 88 GDPR, margin numbers 41-50 (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.) (accessed 30 April 2021).
  3. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context, 13 September 2001 (available here).
  4. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available here).
  5. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, 8 June 2017 (available here).
  6. See also Selk, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 88 GDPR, margin numbers 175-177 (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.) (accessed 30 April 2021).
  7. Van Eecke, Simkus, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 88 GDPR, pp. 1232-1233 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  8. CJEU, Osterreichischer Rundfank, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, 20 May 2003 (available here).
  9. CJEU, Worten, C-342-12, 30 May 2013 (available here).
  10. VG Wiesbaden, 23 K 1360/20.WI.PV, 21 December 2021 (available here).
  11. European Commission, EU Member States notification to the European Commission under the GDPR (available here).
  12. Italy notification GDPR articles 49(5), 51(4), 83(9), 84(2), 85(3), 88(3), 90(2) (available here) (accessed 30 April 2021).
  13. Slovakia notification GDPR articles 51(4), 85(3), 88(3) (available here) (accessed 30 April 2021).
  14. Ireland notification GDPR articles 51(4), 84(2), 85(3), 88(3), 90(2) (available here) (accessed 30 April 2021).
  15. France notification GDPR articles 49(5), 51(4), 84(2), 85(3), 88(3), 90(2) (available here) (accessed 30 April 2021).
  16. Germany notification GDPR articles 49(5), 51(4), 83(9), 84(2), 85(3), 88(3), 90(2) (available here) (accessed 30 April 2021).