CJEU - C-634/21 - SCHUFA Holding and Others II
|CJEU - Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others II|
|Relevant Law:||Article 6(1) GDPR|
Article 22 GDPR
Article 22(1) GDPR
SCHUFA Holding AG
|Case Number/Name:||Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others II|
|European Case Law Identifier:|
|Reference from:||VG Wiesbaden (Germany)|
|Language:||24 EU Languages|
See Holding for questions referred.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
Facts pending CJEU decision.
Holding[edit | edit source]
1. Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation – OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that the automated establishment of a probability value concerning the ability of a data subject to service a loan in the future already constitutes a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning the data subject or similarly significantly affects him or her, where that value, determined by means of personal data of the data subject, is transmitted by the controller to a third-party controller and the latter draws strongly on that value for its decision on the establishment, implementation or termination of a contractual relationship with the data subject?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 6(1) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the use of a probability value – in casu, in relation to a natural person’s ability and willingness to pay, in the case where information about claims against that person is taken into account – regarding specific future behaviour of a natural person for the purpose of deciding on the establishment, implementation or termination of a contractual relationship with that person (scoring) is permissible only if certain further conditions, which are set out in more detail in the grounds of the request for a preliminary ruling, are met?
Comment[edit | edit source]
This case is not to be confused with C-26/22 - SCHUFA Holding.
See here for original case.
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!