Search results

2019 3rd edition); Leupold, Schrems in Knyrim, Der Datkomm, Article 79 GDPR, margin number 12 (rdb.at 2018). Leupold, Schrems in Knyrim, Der Datkomm, Article

these reasons, some have branded this requirement as an "empty promise". In Schrems II, the CJEU held that the notions of appropriate safeguards, enforceable

Mr. Schrems had been transferred by Facebook Ireland to its servers belonging to Facebook Inc., located in the United States. In 2013, Mr. Schrems complained

2020, 3rd edition); Leupold, Schrems in Knyrim, Der Datkomm, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 12 (rdb.at 2018). Leupold, Schrems in Knyrim, Der Datkomm, Article

must be investigated with all due diligence. Case law: In case C-362/14 - Schrems CJEU considered that where a person lodges with a SA a claim concerning

Facebook Ireland and Schrems, 16 July 2020, margin number 92 (available here). CJEU, Case C-311/18, Facebook Ireland and Schrems, 16 July 2020, margin

margin numbers 4-6 (C. H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Case C‑362/14, Schrems. In Schrems I, the CJEU invalidated the Safe Harbor Agreement and stated that

in C-311/18 - Schrems II, paragraphs 99, 101, 105, 122, 137, 138, 140, 149, 161, 178, 198 or 199. See for example CJEU in C-311/18 - Schrems II, paragraphs

the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) C-311/18 judgement (Schrems II) held that the use of appropriate safeguards requires that they provide

Mr. Schrems had been transferred by Facebook Ireland to its servers belonging to Facebook Inc., located in the United States. In 2013, Mr. Schrems complained

considers it to not comply with the GDPR's requirements. For instance, in Schrems I, the CJEU made it clear that the competent SA when examining a data subject's

University Press 2020). As the CJEU clarified in its judgement in the C-311/18 (Schrems II) (§ 147): “As regards the fact, underlined by the Commissioner, that

the judgment of the European Court of Justice Facebook Ireland and Schrems (Schrems II), 2 the company can no longer rely on a decision on an adequate

case C-311/18, Schrems II, paragraphs 101 and 105. [2] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 16 July 2020 in case C-311/18, Schrems II, paragraph

the judgment of the European Court of Justice Facebook Ireland and Schrems (Schrems II), 2 the company no longer relies on a decision on an adequate level

the judgment of the European Court of Justice Facebook Ireland and Schrems (Schrems II), 2 the company can no longer rely on a decision on an adequate

the judgment of the European Court of Justice Facebook Ireland and Schrems (Schrems II), 2 the company can no longer rely on a decision on an adequate

(see ECJ Judt. v. 16.7.2020 - C-311/18 - Facebook Ireland u. Schrems, hereinafter: Schrems II). The ECJ has ruled that the EU-US adequacy decision ("Privacy

CJEU Schrems II Judgment. This is also related to the accountability principle from Article 5(2) GDPR. The DPA remarks that, according the Schrems II Judgment

Chapter V. of the GDPR. About a month after the "Schrems II ruling" by the CJEU (CJEU - C-311/18 - Schrems II) the NGO noyb filed 101 complaints regarding