Search results

monitoring purposes need to be specified for every surveillance camera in use and "[v]ideo surveillance based on the mere purpose of 'safety' or 'for your safety'

respects the GDPR as well as the specific conditions laid down in Chapter V. The same conditions must also be met for onward transfers to further third

Commisson v Germany; Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria; and Case C-288/12, Commission v Hungary. See CJEU, case C-518/07 - Commission v Germany, paragraph

this Regulation and of measures taken in accordance with Article 58(2); and (v) fulfil any other tasks related to the protection of personal data. 2. Each

matter is largely clarified by the CJEU now. Case Law: In C-487/21 - F.F. v DSB, the CJEU clarified that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR entails

14 TPG (German Organ Transplant Law). § 284 and § 285 SGB V (German Social Insurance Code V)

(rights of the data subject), CHAPTER IV (controller and processor), CHAPTER V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations)

3rd Edition). CJEU in case C-288/2012 - Commission v Hungary, paragraphs 53 to 59. Case C‑424/15, Garai v Administración del Estado, paragraph 52. Polenz

carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household

“European Court of  Human Rights, 14  September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. The Netherlands, EC:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, margin number 83: “Further

available'. This provision, together with the others contained in Chapter V, thus contributes to the transfer of personal data in a globalised economy

protection that should be achieved is promoted and delimited in Chapter V of the GDPR. Chapter V of the GDPR creates a three-tiered structure for legal bases for

shall examine, in particular, the application and functioning of: (a) Chapter V on the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations

Furthermore, this choice must be seen in light of Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria. Here, the ECJ established that a supervisory authority's staff could

Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, 2009, §§ 114-115; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], 2011, §§ 301-304 and 319; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], 2012

University Press 2020). CJEU, Commission v Germany, C-518/07, margin number 23 (available here); CJEU, Commission v. Austria, C-614/10, margin number 37 (available

is particularly sensitive, privacy should trump transparency. In C-439/19 B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima the CJEU held that ‘in light [of]… the sensitivity

Articles 6 to 9 GDPR, or the lack of a valid transfer mechanism under Chapter V GDPR. It further includes violations of delegated acts and implementing acts

ensure democratic control and transparency. Case law: The CJEU in Commission v Germany, considered tha the obligation of independent SAs to regularly submit

other mechanism of Chapter V can be applied. As explained by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the mechanism in Chapter V acts as a layer structure

CJEU - C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR The GDPR does not provide a definition of 'establishment' for the

exercise of their powers. The CJEU clarified, in Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission, that information will be considered confidential if it fulfils

processors (Article 28); safeguards surrounding international transfer(s) (Chapter V); prior consultation (Article 36). risks to the rights and freedoms of data

Passenger Name Records. The transfers based on other provisions of Chapter V, such as adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses and binding corporate

of dispute resolution. This reading is supported by the Court in Commission v Germany, which interpreted the phrase “complete independence” in the context

number 2 (C. H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition) citing CJEU, C-193/18, Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 13 June 2019 (available here), and CJEU, C-142/18

first take place before the Small Claims Court. The EWCA in Open Rights Group v Secretary of State for the Home Department helpfully summarised the approach

transfers to third countries or international organisations under Chapter V of the GDPR (Article 44 et seq. GDPR). The GDPR only requires that a SA is

exchange of information and best practices between the supervisory authorities; (v) promote common training programmes and facilitate personnel exchanges between

Article 30, margin number 19 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). CJEU, C-154/21, RW v Österreichische Post, 12 January 2023, among the others, margin number 24 (available

ensuring compliance with data transfer requirements for third countries (Chapter V), and organizing communication with data subjects and supervisory authorities

transfers to non-EU/EEA countries ('third countries') can be found in Chapter V of the GDPR. Example: When a Czech controller is storing personal data with

identified; (iv) how serious the consequences of the breach are to individuals; (v) whether individuals affected are particularly vulnerable; (vi) whether the

The CJEU issued its first judgment on non-material damages under Article 82 GDPR. It was ruled that there is no threshold for non-material damages for

international organisations, taking into account the provisions of Chapter V of the GDPR. If the instructions by the controller "do not allow for transfers

CJEU - C-487/21 F.F. v DSB Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR Decided: 04.05.2023 Parties: DSB (Austria) Case Number/Name:

CJEU - C-154/21 RW v Österreichische Post Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 12(5)(b) GDPR Article 15(1)(c)

application of Chapter V of the GDPR First, it must be verified whether the first respondent is subject to the obligations standardized in Chapter V of the Regulation

Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, paragraph 86, 9. November 2010 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines

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

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

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

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