How to add a new decision
- Create an account with GDPRhub
- Log in with your Account
- Fill out the GDPRhub Submission Form
- Click submit
- Once you have submitted a case, you can edit the page like any other wiki page
- Proofread the page after submitting your summary
Below you can find a guide on how to summarize decisions for the GDPRhub.
If you have questions or suggestions you can always contact us.
Choose the Right Form
There are three versions of the form:
- One for DPA Decisions (Data Protection Authorities)
- One for Court or Tribunal* Decisions
- One for CJEU Decisions (Court of Justice of the European Union)
*There is no form for other types of bodies like tribunals or non-judiciary bodies, but you can usually use the Court form and maybe edit the details in the final wiki page. Our team is happy to help you there.
Manual editing of pages: You do not have to manually edit our pages anymore, but if you are interested in the Mediawiki structure of pages, for example to edit them, you can find more details on the How to add a new decision manually (outdated) page.
The correct meta information is key to enable readers to find your summary. Please take care to be very precise, as many elements require each digit to be correct, so that your summary shows up in the right category.
Choose the right jurisdiction from the drop-down. It only allows EU Member States, other EEA Member States, the European Union itself and the UK.
Authority or Court
The DPA that made the decision. All details of all relevant DPAs are already in our system. You just have to choose the right authority. For many jurisdictions, there will only be one option.
This also includes decisions by different elements within a DPA (e.g. a decision and an appeals chamber). GDPRhub does not differentiate here. You should mention such a thing in the description of the case.
The court that made the decision.
If you have a court decision, there will generally be an auto-suggest based on the abbreviation of the court. Just click on the suggested name to have all details filled in automatically. This ensures that the courts names are always the same and the translation of the name and the abbreviation is consistent.
When adding local courts manually, please take special care to enter the right details:
- Abbreviation: This should be the short form of the Court as used in the Member State (for example the "Kammergericht" in Berlin is abbreviated as "KG Berlin"). Previously used abbreviations will be auto-suggested and appear on a 'drop-down' list.
- Full Name: The full name of the Court as used in the Member State (for example "Kammergericht Berlin"). You can find examples of what Courts have previously been called in individual jurisdictions on the GDPRhub here.
- English Name: The English (usually descriptive) name of the Court to make foreign readers understand what type of court this was. Some Member States have official English names (e.g. Germany) with other Countries you have to translate the name yourself. You can find examples of what Courts have previously been called in individual jurisdictions on the GDPRhub here. If your Court has an English name (e.g. the Irish High Court) you just enter the same name twice.
Do not add the sub-units or other elements of a court (e.g. “Supreme Court - 4th Chamber”).
National Case Number (or Name)
National Case Number
Most Member States have some form of case numbering. Just enter the relevant number here. If in doubt, check how the other cases from your country were formatted. You can check for such an example by clicking on your jurisdiction on GDPRhub.
Case Name (if there is no case number)
Only if there is no case number (e.g. because the case was not published or a court or DPA does not use case numbers) you can us a case name. If the case was not published or you do not know the details (e.g. because there is only a press statement by the DPA) then you can enter a descriptive case name (e.g. "Austrian Postal Service").
Some courts and DPAs also publish the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) with each decision, however this is not very common for DPAs not always the case with courts. If the ECLI is available, you can add it here. It usually starts with “ECLI:” and the Code for a country (e.g. “AT”).
Add a GDPR Article
Choose the GDPR Articles and the sub-paragraph that are relevant for your case.
- You can add multiple articles. Always add all relevant Articles (e.g. Article 6(1)(a) and 4(11) GDPR in a case concerning the requirements of consent).
- Always use the most specific sub-paragraph (e.g. Article 6(1)(a) GDPR for consent and Article 6(1) GDPR if there was no legal basis at all).
Add other EU Law
If any other EU law was relied on, add the Article and name of the law and a link
- Follow the Format "Article 1(2)(a) Directive 2021/1234" for the name
- Add a EUR-LEX link for the relevant law
Add National/Other Law
You can add other relevant national laws (e.g. a national Data Protection Act or a procedural law) here. This is also the right place for international law, like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Follow the common national short citation (the text has to go in a small box). For example the German "Bundesdatenschutzgesetz" would be the "BDSG"
- Add a link (ideally to the official national legal database) for the relevant law
Remove a Law
You can click on "remove" any law that you have previously added.
Type of Decision
For DPAs you can add the type of decision. Just choose the relevant value form the drop-down options. This allows us to generate more detailed statistics.
For DPAs you can add the type an outcome of a decision. Just choose the relevant value form the drop-down options. This allows us to generate more detailed statistics.
For DPA decisions, you can enter the date the case was started, if known.
Date Decided or Date Published
- Whenever possible, add the "date decided" in the box.
- Only if there is no information about the date a case was decided, you can at least add the data a case was published, or the relevant source was published.
For DPAs you can add the fine. Just activate the checkbox, enter the amount and choose the currency. This allows us to generate more detailed statistics.
Some cases say who the parties were. If so, you should add the name. You may also add the URL of the party, as this can help readers to understand the context or type of controller better. When the parties are abbreviated (e.g. "A versus B") you can add "A" and "B" as names.
You can add one or more sources for the decision.
→ Choose the most official version and ideally a PDF (easier to auto-translate).
The source will usually be the national decision database, DPA or court’s website. You can also cite private decision repositories, but please make sure that the link is stable and does not change and that it is a free and public resource. If you are not sure, you can add multiple sources.
- Name: (Short) name of the source (e.g. "BAILII" for the British and Irish Legal Information Institute)
- Language: The language of the original source
- URL: The link to the original source
Link to CURIA
Appeals & Reference Information
If available, it would be great to have information about appeals of the case, which may allow us to link up decisions when they move up the court system. Usually when a decision is new, the appeals information may not be available yet, while in some countries the information if the decision is final or was further appealed is available. You can also update this section later, when more information becomes available.
- Was this an appeal? Choose yes, if this case was an appeal from a lower court or from any other decision.
- Original Decision Details: If this was an appeal, add the details (Court, Case Number or Name and Link) as described above.
- Body: Do not forget to mention the name of the appealing court in line with our guidelines (for example: OLG Wien). Make sure the country name is accompanying the court name. Check the list of existing courts per jurisdiction if you have any doubt about how to write it.
- Case Number or Name: Add the case name or, it not available, the case name.
- Link: Add a link to the appealed decision.
- Appeal Status: Choose the appeal status from the drop down. Choose "unknown" if there is no clear indication yet.
- Superior Decision Details: If there is (already) a superior decision, add the details (Court, Case Number or Name and Link) as described above.
- Body: Do not forget to mention the name of the superior court in line with our guidelines (for example: OLG Wien). Make sure the country name is accompanying the court name. Check the list of existing courts per jurisdiction if you have any doubt about how to write it.
- Case Number or Name: Add the case name or, it not available, the case name.
- Link: Add a link to the appeal decision.
- Reference: Only when you choose to summarise a CJEU decision, you can add the details on the referring court and the case of that court.
Note: If there is some form of national reference, appeal within a body (e.g. an appeals board within the DPA) do not treat this an an appeal between two bodies and explain the procedure under the national law in the case description.
The main text you should write is the actual case summary. It has three mandatory elements (facts, holding and short summary) and the option to add a comment. These different sections appear directly on the form, but we recommend using a text processing tool to write them separately then copy paste them into their respective boxes.
→ Please do use our style guide to help you write these.
We also try to add a machine translation of the whole decision so that readers that are more interested can verify your summary and get more details.
The facts should be a short summary of the factual background of the case.
Some general rules:
- Focus on the factual elements that are necessary to understand the case and the holding. Irrelevant facts can be omitted.
- Try to be very detailed on the relevant details (for example the exact wording of a consent clause that was disputed) but skip irrelevant parts.
- Ensure that the facts are summarised in a way that people from other countries can understand them (for example explain that "MegaDB Limited" is a data broker even when most readers in your jurisdiction may know that).
The holding is the "legal principle to be drawn from the decision". It is the rationale for the decision on the core dispute of the case. In many decisions there may be multiple holdings or connected holdings.
A simple example for a holding could be:
- "The Court held that consent is not informed (Article 4(11) GDPR), when a data subject did not know about the specific recipients."
- "The DPA held that even the probability of political affiliations constitutes data revealing political opinions under Article 9(1) GDPR."
Try to avoid texts like the following:
- "The DPA held that the GDPR was violated." - This does not tell the reader what provision which provision was violated.
- "The consent was not valid" - This does not tell the reader why it was invalid.
The short summary is used for two purposes: (1) It is shown on the top of the page, to allow readers to quickly determine if the case is relevant and (2) it is used for promoting your summary (e.g. on social media). You can check the last summaries as a short text in videos on our @GDPRhub twitter account.
Therefore the short summary should follow these guidelines:
- They should be 100 to 250 characters (as long as a tweet). You may go over that limit if absolutely necessary.
- Highlight the core holding (like "probability of political affiliation falls under Article 9 GDPR")
- Highlight fines and other crucial outcomes.
Try to avoid the following:
- General statements like (like "X violated the GDPR") as this gives readers very little information. Focus on the main "take away" that you identified in the holding.
- Company names (like "Creditinfo Lánstrausti hf.") unless the company is generally known in Europe (like "Amazon"). Just say "a controller" (when the type of company is irrelevant) or "a credit ranking agency" (specific type of company).
- You do not need to highlight the Country.
Especially when a ruling is questionable, at odds with other decision or plainly against the law, you should note that in the comments to put the decision into context for the reader. You may also refer and link to other cases here and give the reader extra context or alternative views. This section also allows you to express your own view and criticise the decision.
We try to automatically translate each decision to English, so that readers can get a better understanding of the details, even when they do not speak the local language.
Original Decision Text
- Automated Import: In most cases we can automatically recognize the text of the original decision (PDFs and some databases). This data is taken from the
- Manual Import: If it is not possible to read the text from the link, we kindly ask you to copy/paste the text of the decision into this box.
Translation to English
Our system will translate the original decision and display an English machine translation at the bottom of the case summary.
Note: If the source language is English, the original text will just be copied, without the need for a translation.
Some of our contributors like to be named on GDPRhub and in the GDPRtoday newsletter.
You can enter your name (or nickname) here, if you want it to be shown in the case summary (bottom of the table on the right), and in the GDPRtoday newsletter.
Link to GDPRhub Profile
If you have created a user profile on GDPRhub.eu (check your page at Special:MyPage) a link to this page will be added to the GDPRtoday newsletter, if you also added a name or nickname with your case submission.
Add the Submission ID of your summary. You can find the Submission ID in the chat that was created on MatterMost between you and the channel manager.
Submit and Review Your Summary
Once you have submitted your summary, you will be redirected to the final Article.
You can use the normal mediawiki functions to edit and change your decision, if you are not happy with the result.
At this point please check the 'Info Box' which contains the meta data you entered for any typos or mistakes. For example, a common problem we see with submissions is broken links (for example when naming a DPA or national court differently than what already exists on GDPRhub). These appear in purple, and you simply have to edit the keywords in line with what categories already exist.
Thank you for your support! ❤️
Add or Edit a Decision Manually
We do not recommend manually adding a decision unless you have very good skills in editing mediawiki source code. If you are interested, you can however find all details about how to edit a page manually at How to manually add or edit a decision.