CJEU - C-61/19 - Orange Romania: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{CJEUdecisionBOX <!--Information about the decision--> |Case_Number_Name=C-61/19 |ECLI=ECLI:EU:C:2019:801 |Opinion_Link=http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?t...")
 
No edit summary
Line 28: Line 28:
|National_Law_Name_1=Article 32 Law No 677/2001 on the protection of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Romanian Data Protection Act)
|National_Law_Name_1=Article 32 Law No 677/2001 on the protection of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Romanian Data Protection Act)


|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Name_1=Orange România SA
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Name_2=Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Name_3=
Line 48: Line 48:


===Facts===
===Facts===
On 28 March 2018  
On 28 March 2018, the Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (national Romanian data protection authority; ‘the ANSPDCP’), based on Article 32 of Law No 677/2001 (Romanian Data Protection Act) imposed an administrative penalty on Orange România (a provider of mobile telecommunication services on the Romanian market) on the ground that copies of the identity documents of its customers had been obtained and stored without their express consent.
 
Orange România had requested consent for this data processing from its customers by giving them the opportunity to refuse their consent in handwritten form on the contract forms used by Orange România.
 
Orange România appealed against the ANSPDCP's decision before the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania) which then requested the EUCJ'S preliminar ruling on the following questions:
 
‘(1)      For the purposes of Article 2(h) of [Directive 95/46], what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as specific and informed?
 
(2)      For the purposes of Article 2(h) of [Directive 95/46], what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as freely given?’


===The opinion of the Advocate General===
===The opinion of the Advocate General===

Revision as of 11:08, 11 March 2020

CJEU - C-61/19
Cjeulogo.png
Court: CJEU
Jurisdiction: European Union
Relevant Law: Article 4(11) GDPR
Article 6(1)(a)GDPR
Article 7 GDPR
Article 2(2)(h) Directive 95/46
Article 6 Directive 95/46
Article 7 Directive 95/46
Article 32 Law No 677/2001 on the protection of persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Romanian Data Protection Act)
Decided: OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL: 04.3.2020
Parties: Orange România SA
Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)
Case Number/Name: C-61/19
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2019:801
Reference from:
Language: 24 EU Languages
Original Source: AG Opinion
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Advocate General...

Facts

On 28 March 2018, the Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (national Romanian data protection authority; ‘the ANSPDCP’), based on Article 32 of Law No 677/2001 (Romanian Data Protection Act) imposed an administrative penalty on Orange România (a provider of mobile telecommunication services on the Romanian market) on the ground that copies of the identity documents of its customers had been obtained and stored without their express consent.

Orange România had requested consent for this data processing from its customers by giving them the opportunity to refuse their consent in handwritten form on the contract forms used by Orange România.

Orange România appealed against the ANSPDCP's decision before the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania) which then requested the EUCJ'S preliminar ruling on the following questions:

‘(1) For the purposes of Article 2(h) of [Directive 95/46], what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as specific and informed?

(2) For the purposes of Article 2(h) of [Directive 95/46], what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as freely given?’

The opinion of the Advocate General

Lore impum

The decision of the Court

To be completed..

Comment

Add your comment here!