Search results

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. Planet49 GmbH Case Number/Name: C-673/17 Planet49 European Case Law Identifier:

CJEU - C-251/21 Meta Platforms and Others v Bundeskartellamt Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 6 GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article

20 June 2007, p. 4 (available here). European Court of Human Rights. Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95. For example as a consumer, patient, employee

used to achieve this are identified and summarised in R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800, [2021] 1 WLR

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

was first outlined in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council in 2002 and reiterated in HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, R (ex parte) v The Secretary of State for Transport

to ensure that additional measures were put in place to comply with Chapter V of the GDPR, such as encryption of the personal data. The Municipality claimed

Austrian DPA alleging that the controller breached the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

Directive committed up to the date when that Directive was repealed (§104). V. In the fifth place, the Court recognized the direct effect of the provision

provisions of the GDPR shall not be interpreted in broader terms the Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty/Treaty of Lisbon and, in any case, border than the

Irving v Post Office [1987] IRLR 289, Weddall v Barchester Healthcare [2012] EWCA Civ 25, Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47, Brown v Robinson

The CJEU ruled that consent is not valid if a contract contains a clause stating that the data subject has been informed of, and has consented to, the

CJEU - C-667/21 ZQ v Medical Service of Health Insurance North Rhine Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(f) GDPR Article

Chamber),composed of D. Spielmann, President, V. Valančius (Rapporteur) and R. Mastroianni, Judges,Registrar: V. Di Bucci,having regard to the written part

Cecilie Tandberg Hallan - for trial) against the State v / Personvernnemnda (Government Advocate v / lawyer Stein-Erik Jahr Dahl). Author Judges Erik Thyness

data to the US in violation of Chapter V of the GDPR. At the same time, the supervisory authority ruled that Chapter V of the GDPR sets out obligation only

Judgment In the legal dispute of Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e. V., represented by its board Wolfgang Schuldzinski, Mintropstraße 27, 40215 Düsseldorf

Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 7 CJEU, 24 September 2019, C-507/17, Google LLC v Commission nationale