Search results

the set time limit. Both decisions are under appeal. The ban was extended to the whole EU/EEA by a EDPB Urgent Binding Decision adopted under Article 66

below € 75,000 the appel has to be brought in the Circuit Court, otherwise at the Irish High Court. Under Section 150(1) DPA 2018 a controller or processor

annulment of decisions of the Board before the Court of Justice under the conditions provided for in Article 263 TFEU. As addressees of such decisions, the supervisory

controller takes the decisions on the purposes and means for the relevant processing operations and has the power to have these decisions implemented. When

account, the Court declared the Privacy Shield Decision to therefore be invalid. The Court also clarified that in the absence of an adequacy decision, the competent

broad reading. Case law: In Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, the Court acknowledged that as the GDPR does not define the terms ‘employees’ and ‘employment’

all related decisions in Category:Article 14 GDPR EDPB, ‘Binding decision 1/2021 on the dispute arisen on the draft decision of the Irish Supervisory Authority

account, the Court declared the Privacy Shield Decision to therefore be invalid. The Court also clarified that in the absence of an adequacy decision, the competent

establishment has the power to have such decisions implemented, in which case the establishment having taken such decisions is to be considered to be the main

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

17/EN WP260 rev.01, 11 April 2018, p. 29 (available here). EDPB, DPA, Court decisions --> name of the authority, case + case number, name, date, parties,

announcing your intention to appeal. The Court will then request the file from the AEPD. The Court will contact you to submit your arguments. It may take

appeals against decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Appeals against decisions of the Upper Tribunal are heard in the Court of Appeal.

confirms that the decision is not based on the EDPB guidelines, but on the GDPR. The reference to the grace period given by the Irish DPC is rejected by

conclusive determination of the data subject’s complaint. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the Commissioner had complied with all the obligations

fine is brought to the police who present the case in court. As such, appeals will go through the court system. Datatilsynet post the focus of their planned

own motion. Appeals against decisions by the Italian Garante can be taken by the parties concerned before the civil court (Article 152 of the Code, which

Council of State. For decisions given in French For decisions given in Dutch If you want to have a complete overview of the decisions given by the Belgian

highest administrative court (Conseil d'État). This applies to sanctions, guidelines or any decision of the authority. Decisions by the Conseil d'État are

Actions against decisions of the European Data Protection Supervisor, including decisions under Article 63(3), shall be brought before the Court of Justice

overturn decisions issued by the DPA, in part or in full. Their decisions are final under the administrative procedure, but can be appealed to the courts. Decisions

(Article 64(2) GDPR); binding decisions under the dispute resolution procedure (Article 65 GDPR); and binding decisions where a supervisory authority has

than 1.600 of their decisions in the Austrian decision database RIS.bka.gv.at since 1994. Not all decisions are published, only decisions that are novel or

the NAIH decision shall be submitted to the authority itself within thirty days of its communication. Only attorney at law can act at the court on behalf

LSA can refer a case to a national Court under certain circumstances. The Belgian DPA brought an action before Court of First Instance of Brussels, Belgium

establishment has the power to enforce those decisions, in which case the establishment having taken such decisions shall be considered as the principal establishment

(ZVOP-1) are still valid and in use, which was confirmed also by some late court decisions. These are of course parts of 2007 ZVOP-1 which are not in contradiction

appeals/complaints were processed Fines: With 51 decisions fines of 30,060,00 euros were imposed Decisions: 67 Opinions: 5 Breach incidents: 175 were announced

the Binding Decision. Please note: When describing Issues 1-3, it is necessary to explain the proposals in the Irish DPA’s Draft Decision, in order to

submission to the Director of the DVI. Furthermore, the decision issued by Director may be appealed to a court in accordance with the Law on Administrative Liability

in this section! Decision and Opinions can be found on the CNPD's website here : https://cnpd.public.lu/en/decisions-avis.html. Decisions summarized on the

Appeals against decisions are possible in the German administrative jurisdiction. Court of first instance is the district administration court (Verwaltungsgericht)

section! The completed investigations can be found here. Decisions by the DPA can be found here. Decisions by the Head of the DPA can be found here. You can help

responsible had his main place of business in Ireland, in accordance with Article 4 of the PGN. However, the Irish authority denied its competence, arguing

applies to the decisions taken by the restricted committee, which are decisions of an administrative nature since they are sanction decisions which contribute

the Irish Data Protection Commission (hereinafter “IE SA”) issued Decisions IN-18-5-5 and IN-18-5-7 (hereinafter “IE Decisions”). The IE Decisions found

independence of their members or to weigh on their decisions. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 55 GDPR Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave

annulment of decisions of the Board before the Court of Justice under the conditions provided for in Article 263 TFEU. As addressees of such decisions, the supervisory

make public issued decisions. There is no such obligation to do so in Slovak national law. If you want to access Slovak DPA decisions, you can consult the

This question is the subject of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Court of Justice (hereinafter CJEU) is well known, in

X to lead to dereferencing.References to case-law decisions of the Court of Justice (which the Court ofmarkets does not question), justify the theory,

was not satisfied; the decision to issue the assessment notices was lawful. These were grouped into four broad headings by the court, which in turn assessed

establishment has the power to enforce those decisions, in which case the establishment which has taken such decisions shall be regarded as the principal establishment

act as Concerned Supervisory Authorities (CSA) next to the Slovak DPA: Ireland (Irish Data Protection Commissioner -DPC), Sweden (Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten

that this articulation was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its PLANET49 decision of 1 October 2019 (C-613/17). In doing so, the

DSB’s communications as decisions, this would mean that the BVwG would have to decide on the legality of a decision by the Irish DPC. In this context the

--Information about the Court--> |Jurisdiction= |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo= |Court_Abbrevation= |Court_With_Country= <!--Information about the decision--> |Case_Number_Name=

--Information about the Court--> |Jurisdiction= |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo= |Court_Abbrevation= |Court_With_Country= <!--Information about the decision--> |Case_Number_Name=

the Binding Decision. Please note: When describing Issues 1-3, it is necessary to explain the proposals in the Irish DPA’s Draft Decision, in order to

form of a common decision taken by two or more entities or result from converging decisions by two or more entities, where the decisions complement each

that the Irish DPA was instead the competent authority under the one stop shop mechanism. Material competence of the French DPA This decision revolves

DPA forwarded the complaint to the Irish DPA as the main establishment of Facebook in Europe is in Ireland. The Irish DPC forwarded the complaint to Facebook

referred a case to the Irish DPA regarding Facebook transfers of data to third parties. The Irish DPA rejected the case, since Ireland has not implemented

of 16 The EU Court subsequently clarified in C-210/16 (Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein), that the fact that: ”[…] strategic decisions with regard

Frankfurt am Main 8 März 2012 (highest regional court, second highest in German court system), the court considers a site where one can rank doctors according

Having received submissions by Twitter, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) proceeded to set out his provisional views as to whether, in notifying

appeal this decision at the Irish High Court, pursuant to section 42 of the 1997 Act. Did the High Court have the remit to address the decisions made by the

Act 1988. The DPC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision. The Court decided that: 1. The data subject

English original for more details. Adopted 1 Decision 01/2020 on the dispute arisen on the draft decision of the Irish Supervisory Authority regarding Twitter

GDPR. This Binding Decision concerns the dispute arisen following a draft decision (hereinafter, “Draft Decision”) issued by the Irish supervisory authority

this section! In Ireland the GDPR is implemented by the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). You can help us fill this section! In Ireland, the age of digital

Guarantor in previous decisions (see provv.to 21/7/2022 n. 268, web doc. n. 9811271) finds confirmation in the ruling with which the Court of Cassation (see

want to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the appeal body for the Court of Appeal's decisions. Appeals to the

contradictory. Conceptual decisions of the competent federal legislator must not be distorted or even undermined by decisions of a Land legislator based

controller's establishment in Ireland. The Court added that the controller's argument that the right to bring proceedings before the Court of the data subject's

purposes . These two decisions (hereinafter, collectively, the ‘IE SA Decisions’) were adopted on the basis of EDPB Binding Decisions 3/2022 and 4/2022,

indeed fall within the material scope of the GDPR, a national court, including any referring court, is required to seek the precise source of the legal obligation

plaintiff refers to the decision of the Irish data protection authority Y., the court is already not bound by such a decision and also does not share the

Regional Court, order of 9 May 2019 - 18 W 523/19 -; Dres-den Higher Regional Court, order of 5 April 2019 - 3 W 286/19 -; Stuttgart District Court, loc.

theEDPB decision(s) andfoundadmissible, theGeneral Court/CJEUhastheopportunitytoinvalidatethedecisionoftheEDPB.Inaddition,andiftheGeneralCourt/CJEU were

private.” 136. The Supreme Court in Irish Times Ltd. v. Ireland [1998] 1 I.R. 359 recognised the inherent jurisdiction of the court to direct that a case be

subject, represented by noyb, appealed this decision of the DPA to the administrative Court (hereafter the Court) to have the DPA's letter reversed or annulled

patients’ personal data. Decision IN-19-9-1 was issued in August 2020 and Decision IN-19-9-2 was issued in September 2020. These decisions should be read in conjunction

This decision concerns the use of plug-ins from social networks such as Facebook in websites. The court considered the question of joint controllers and

accordance with the case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) and the European Court of Human Rights’”. (Emphasis added)

action against that decision in court. The Circuit Court, High Court and Court of Appeal all dismissed his claims. However, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal

precisely recourse to the Market Court", Court of Appeal Brussels, Market Court section, 19 th Chamber A, Market Court section, 2019/AR/741, 12 June 2019

eu/sites/default/files/decisions/final_decision_-_in-19-1- 1_9.12.2020.pdf>. The DPC’s decision has been confirmed in the Dublin Circuit Court <https://www.dataprotection

the extent to 1Decision 1/2021 on the dispute arisen on the draft decision of the Irish Supervisory Authority regarding WhatsApp Ireland under Article 65(1)(a)

the case-law of the Brussels Court of Appeal, section Market Court." [free translation] 27. According to the Market Court case law referred to, the Disputes

form of a common decision taken by two or more entities or result from converging decisions by two or more entities, where the decisions complement each

establishment has the power to have such decisions implemented, in which case the establishment having taken such decisions is to be considered to be the main

companies brought an action against the decision before the Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf, Germany (the Court). The Court referred to the CJEU for a preliminary

(substantiated): 17 Datatilsynet's decisions upheld: 8 Datatilsynet's decisions amended or repealed: 8 Ratio of decisions changed: 47% Case processing time

judgment Schrems II, the European Court of Justice did not reject standard contract clauses which transfer tool. However, the court found that they are not binding

cases, you agree that the claim must be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction in Ireland and that Irish law governs these Terms and all claims regardless

cases to come to similar decisions in the EEA. Further decisions are expected soon. For details see here and here. Another decision was published by the French

French DPA. One of these decisions was the Conseil's decision of 28 January 2022 (Societe GOOGLE LLC and Societe GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED). Territorial competence

judgment Schrems II, the European Court of Justice did not reject standard contract clauses which transfer tool. However, the court found that they are not binding

establishment in the meaning of the Weltimmo decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter "the Court of Justice" or "the CJEU") (October

to the electronic post office of the court. The electronic document must be suitable for processing by the court and provided with a qualified electronic

submitting. COURT ORDERS Google shares with Lumen copies of court takedown orders it receives, both from U.S. domestic and foreign courts. As described

means. 75 Subject to review by the referring court, in the present case, the file available to the Court shows that by integrating the 'Like' button from

requires a decision by the appeal court (Section 543 Para. 2 No. 2 ZPO). The Senate deviates from the decision of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court (loc.

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

parallel, challenged the final decision before an Irish court and requested that the Court annul the contested decision in its entirety or, in the alternative

an appeal on a point of law before the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), and the Court referred the following question for a preliminary

subject for it to make informed decisions and understand what it is agreeing to. In our view, to be able to make informed decisions in the present case, the data

2020, the Data Protection Commission (DPC), the Irish Supervisory Authority, has advised that Tik Tok Ireland may be considered a principal establishment within

the Irish Data Protection Authority stated that Google The Irish Privacy Authority is the primary authority for AdWords. Furthermore, the Irish Data Protection

means that the Dutch court has no jurisdiction in this case. The court will therefore decide accordingly. 4. The decision The court 4.1. declares that the

judgment Schrems II, the European Court of Justice did not reject standard contract clauses which transfer tool. However, the court found that they are not binding

addition, the company states that, as accepted by the decision no. 3672/17-12-2013 of the Supreme Court of Appeal of Italy, interpreting and applying the E-Commerce

39. By the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, all the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Court of Chancery and the courts of common law was transferred

judgment Schrems II, the European Court of Justice did not reject standard contract clauses which transfer tool. However, the court found that they are not binding

law. That there was a violation of Article 56 GDPR, according to which the Irish DPA is the only authority who can supervise Facebook’s processing activities

law. That there was a violation of Article 56 GDPR, according to which the Irish DPA is the only authority who can supervise Facebook’s processing activities

the administrative court. 3.2 Under Article 28(1) of the VwGVG, the Administrative Court must settle the case by way of a decision, unless the complaint

Meanwhile postpone the decision for 7 more URLs until the data subject presents the required additional evidence and court decisions. The data subject submitted

"one-stop-shop" mechanism. The Italian DPA acknowledged the Irish DPA’s position in its decision. However, the Italian DPA held the ePrivacy Directive to

Viennese Civil Court (LGfZRS) has denied jurisdiction. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) has overturned the judgment and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction

the decision-making process and decisions of the Litigation Chamber, as well as due to the specificity and public interest present in this decision, it

GDPR. Adpublisher challenged both decisions before the BoA and requested that both decisions be set aside. The Court decided, pursuant to Article 39 of

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) appealed the judgment. Both the Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales

processing could be relied on. The DPA also referred to a Spanish Supreme Court, second chamber, case STS 363/2017 of 15 February 2017, where it was noted

ve appeal before the Contentious-administrative Chamber of the National Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth

million people was exposed online. Following a routine sweep of Irish IP addresses, the Irish National Cyber Security Centre (CSIRT-IE) discovered the exposed

6Ob56 / 21k head The Supreme Court, as a court of appeal by the Senate President Hon.-Prof. Dr. Gitschthaler as chairman, the court councilors Univ.-Prof. Dr

respond to DSARs, the court has the discretion whether or not to issue an order to make Lloyds comply and confirmed that the court would not have exercised

Finland, Slovakia and Slovenia. This decision may be appealed against to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court within one month from the date of its

national courts and the Court of Justice only the national court has the authority to interpret and apply the national legal provisions, while the Court of Justice

has found no basis to postpone the case pending the European Court of Justice's decisions in the aforementioned cases. The Privacy Board had the following

In the first decision by a German higher court on these facts, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm held that loss of control over personal data is not sufficient

administrative and case law of the Court of Appeal of Brussels, section Court of Markets”. 27. The case law of the Markets Court to which reference is made requires

importance of transparency in the decision-making process and the decisions of the Litigation Chamber, this decision will be published on the website of

Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 on the adequacy of the protection conferred by the EU US Privacy Shield. In this ruling, the Court considered

to the Constitutional Court." 4. The application of the Federal Administrative Court in the case before the Constitutional Court 14 hof corresponds to

Inspectorate's decision is reversed so that Sbanken is not ordered to change the spelling of A's name in its processing systems. The decision is unanimous

In what is one of the first judicial decisions on the matter, a national court held that data transfer to the US in the context of Google Analytics was

contained in court files where the courts are not 'public authorities' with environmental responsibilities. In February 2016, the High Court of Ireland delivered

management of the school brought an application in the Irish Court seeking an order that Facebook Ireland, who owns Instagram, to disclose all data it holds

API version 2. The court is of the opinion that Facebook Ireland has also violated its information obligation on this point. The court explains this as follows

contended that the Court should declare Meta’s head of claim inadmissible and dismiss the action. The Court examined whether the contested decision complies with

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) fined Tusla (the Irish Child and Family Agency) €75000 for “unintentionally providing” the personal data of

to pages that contain the words selected by the user. The European Union Court of Justice ruling of 13 May 2014, in paragraph 28, states that "when exploring

Regional Court, Vienna, Austria) on 7 December 2020. The data subject therefore lodged an appeal with the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court). The latter

considered that Google does have EU headquarters in Ireland, but that this Irish entity ‘did not have a decision making power’ in relation to the relevant cross-border

Notwithstanding the CJEU's decision on Case C-300/21, an Irish Court held that compensation for non-material damage does not cover “mere upset”. However

Thus, the Irish DPA took the view that Meta Ireland acted in good faith when transferring data in lack of a proper legal basis. The Irish DPA also did

issued to the company. The decisions are not yet legally binding and can be appealed to the administrative court. Decisions of the Data Protection Commissioner

See Holding for questions referred. Facts pending decision. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling: 1. Are the provisions of Article 6(1)(a) and (b)

also reimburse the court fee paid by the claimant.DecisionThe court -declares the appeal well-founded;-annuls the contested decision;-determines that the

the Tribunal (formerly the Court of first instance) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice)/ Referenced jurisprudence

with the CNIL’s decision and brought the issue before court. First, it claimed that, since there is cross-border processing, the Irish DPA (DPC) is the

proceedings the Austrian DPA asked the Irish DPA whether the Irish entity was responsible for deletion requests which the Irish DPA denied, pointing to the US

standing. The court further observed that the question whether or not the data processing by the app is necessary has substance. However, the court did not deem

(Markten Court section), X t. GBA, Judgment 2021/AR/320 of 7 July 2021, p. 24; Court of Appeal Brussels (Markten Court section), X t.GBA, Judgment 2020/AR/329

of the Federal Court of Justice, correctly reproduced by the regional court (cf. in addition to the judgments listed by the regional court, also BGH GRUR

ruling of the European Court of Justice, Case C-311/18, there was no U.S. adequacy decision at the material time. 49. This Decision does not require a more

about the publication of decisions, in which it is stated that: “The Dispute Chamber is based on the principle that all its decisions, with few exceptions

Automated individual decisions, including profiling:  The accused states that she does not adopt automated individual decisions that may affect users

and 52(1) of the Charter. Ireland appealed against that decision to the referring court, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and

Schrems II decision? With regard to the Schrems II decision: The French Court outlined relevant segments in the the Schrems II CJEU decision. In this case

the court held that this is irrelevant to the question whether an objection is valid or not. As a consequence, the court found that the decision of the

in its AMAZON EUROPE CORE decision of June 27, 2022, the Board of State recalled that "it follows from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European

originates if it is not collected from the registered occurrence of automatic decisions, including profiling, as referred to in Article 22 (2). 1 and 4, and at

recalled that the Court of Justice of the European Union, with ruling C-311/18, of 16 July 2020 (so-called Schrems II), in declaring the decision of the EU Commission

details. 10.07.2023 Court decision - ANPC - WhatsApp In the litigation currently pending, the court of first instance (Bucharest Municipal Court) upheld the minutes

ve appeal before the Contentious-administrative Chamber of the National Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth

Regional Court as the competent court for the claim to be brought by the applicant in this matter; in the eventu, to designate another regional court for civil

that can be enforced before the courts. In the same judgment, the Court also upheld the validity of Commission Decision 2010/87/EC of 5 February 2010 concerning

appealed the decision of the lower court. The Higher Regional Court Munich (Oberlandesgericht München) overturned the decision of the lower court and dismissed

Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. The Higher Regional Court Munchen found the following: The Court found that the Regional Court had correctly assumed that the policy

that person. In the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Valsts ieņēmumu dienests, the Court held that the information requested by

letter dated September 30, 2021 (Appendix B 16). 8th In a decision dated November 25, 2022, the Irish data protection authority DPC imposed a fine of EUR 265

litigation before the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth

High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Soriano

that applies to it. 32. Pursuant to Decision No. 1/2003 of the Supreme Court of Justice, the authority is not required to administrative than in the “accusation”

Bellman questioned Mr Major's decisions, he (Major) punched him (Bellman), causing brain damage. It was held by this Court, reversing the trial judge, that

displayed in the tools. The court of appeal confirmed the principle of the judgement of the court of first instance. The court rejected the applications

recalled that the Court of Justice of the European Union, with ruling C-311/18, of 16 July 2020 (so-called Schrems II), in declaring the decision of the EU Commission

9.2 In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the penalty can be enforced

individuals, the Court considered that the level of protection in this context could not be regarded as manifestly inadequate. The Court therefore considered

combining, shielding, erasing or destroying data ”. Decision on the merits 24/2021 - 9/44 29. The Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed in its case law

Higher Regional Court, Berlin, then to the Federal Court of Justice, which sought a preliminary reference ruling from the Court of Justice. The Advocate General

Defendant Litigants: the Rostock Regional Court - 3rd Civil Chamber - by the Vice-President of the Regional Court as single judge on the basis of the oral

employee. The Celle Higher Regional Court rejected her claim and then she referred to the Federal Constitutional Court. The Court decided for the first time that

but they are not binding for the court (Federal Court of Justice, decision of 08.10.2012 - X ZR 110/11). The court can proceed to determine the relevant

for this. The Court of Audit has established that BZ risks are focus areas governance, organization design and risk management General Court of Audit held

Supreme Court, in a judgment dated November 13, 2012, overturned the judgment of the Higher Regional Court, amended the judgment of the Regional Court and

The Regional Court of Munich awarded a data subject €100 in damages after a controller unlawfully transferred their IP address to Google LLC via the use

aforementioned treatment. Regarding proportionality, the Constitutional Court has indicated in the Judgment 207/1996 that it is "a common and constant

the District Court’s judgment. 2. Each of the parties carries its own costs in the District Court and in the Court of Appeal.” (10) The Court of Appeal found

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

upon referral. According to the Court, “the fact that an en the same judge sits in two formations [of the General Court] which successively taken note of

depositing the cookies. Amazon appealed this decision at the Conseil d'Etat, the French Supreme Administrative Court, and requested its annulment. Amazon also

the registry of this court of appeal on July 21, 2021, [appellant] requested the court of appeal to cancel the decision of the court of Zeeland-West-Brabant

recalls that in its Planet49 judgment of 1 October 2019 (case C-673/19), the Court of Justice of the European Union indicated that a consent collected by means

will issue the decision to the defendant to transfer . After all, the Disputes Chamber has decided to dismiss its decisions 6Cf. Court of Justice EU, judgment

The court further decided that the HKR must delete the personal data of the data subject after the request for access has been fulfilled. The court took

section 3.2.2, point B.5., p. 15. 7cf. Court of Justice EU, Judgment of 16 July 2020, DPC v. Facebook Ireland & Maximillian Schrems, C-311/18, para. 112

The Court stressed the plaintiff rightly had pointed out that according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Court of Justice

damage from that person before the courts, is a legitimate interest is". 81. On the basis of the case law of the Court of Justice and the guidelines of the

which the court of appeals deviated from the established decision-making practice of the Court of Appeal or which in decision-making of the Court of Appeal

is based on the above-mentioned decisions of the CJEU. "Decisions can be considered to coincide with respect to purposes and means if they complement each

purpose of exchange scores. cc This result is not based on the decision of the Federal Court of Justice dated 10.11.2022 (Az. I ZR 186/17 - App-Zentrum) took

in previous decisions, this analysis should necessarily be called into question because of legal developments subsequent to said decisions. The Conseil

before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs

rights that can be enforced in court against the US authorities. The Court also examined the validity of the Commission Decision of 5 February 2010 relating

law of the European Court of Human Rights that expression enjoys protection regardless of its content, cf. Murphy's case against Ireland of 10 July 2003 (RJD

The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Court: District Court Frankfurt

the Federal Administrative Court, followed by a statement and the administrative file. II. The Federal Administrative Court considered: 1. Findings: 1

Spenle Presiding Judge at the Higher Regional Court Judge at the Higher Regional Court Judge at the district court Permalink: https://openjur.de/u/2452377.html

Administrative Court Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 24 September 2019, G.C. and others, C-136/17, paragraph 46. 16See previous decision, p. 23.Data

Convention.&#13; (2) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of

Dutch-speaking Court of First Instance of Brussels already ruled that the predecessor of the GBA had jurisdiction to bring an action before the court "insofar

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

Commissioner vs Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems (hereinafter Schrems II), paragraphs 90 –121). Following the judgment of the European Court of Justice in

the criminal sections of the Supreme Court of Justice cannot be qualified as administrative bodies, since this Court is unequivocally a body of a judicial

law is reserved to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice), the Court submits this question to the Court of Justice. 3. In the

April 2019, which refer in full to the pleadings submitted to the Civil Court of Rome, in opposition to the Garante's order, in which the party has, in

Basic Law ) in decision No. 7 of 1996, which precedes the adoption of the LPPD and the case-law of the court, the Constitutional Court outlines the scope

As this decision has been adopted pursuant to Article 56 and Chapter VII GDPR, the present decision may be appealed before Oslo District Court (“Oslo tingrett”)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

consent, version 1.1., adopted on 4 May 2020. [3]    See also the decision of the European Court of Justice of 29 July 2019, Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v Verbraucherzentrale

agree and brought the action before court. On 18/02/2021, the Regional Court Berlin overturned the DPA’s decision because it held that a legal entity cannot

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable byrder of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable byOrder of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

litigation before the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the National Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth

service: “Decisions about an individual’s access to a product, service, opportunity or benefit that is based to any extent on automated decision-making (including

Bankruptcy Court order produces legal results in Greece, nor does the audited company AMPNI claim such nor does it produce a Greek court decision recognizing

of Personal Data and of theits interpretation by the National Court itself and the Court of Justice of the European Union;2nd violation of article 3 of

establishment has the power to enforce such decisions, in in which case the establishment that has adopted such decisions will be considered main establishment

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

70. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the penalty can be enforced

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable byOrder of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

101. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the penalty can be enforced

Administrative Court. Service The decision is notified in accordance with § 60 of the Administrative Act (434/2003) by mail against receipt. The decision is not

Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems 5 «The starting point will be that decisions by the Data Inspectorate and the

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the monetary penalty

The 60 exfiltrated court bundles included 15 relating to criminal court proceedings and 45 civil proceedings. Of the 60 exfiltrated court bundles, the personal

80. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the penalty can be enforced

from legal fees for the out-of-court activity in the amount of EUR 597.74 and for obtaining the cover note for the court proceedings in the amount of EUR

Main Regional Court on September 30, 2021 (see page 96 of the file). The Darmstadt Regional Court then declared itself incompetent by decision of October

with the ordinary court of the place where the owner of the processing of personal data has his residence, or, alternatively, with the court of the place of

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In 36 • ICO. Information Commissioner's

the day you received the decision. If the appeal has been received In due course, IMY forwards it to the Administrative Court in Stockholm for consideration

116. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the penalty can be enforced

4 of the CECE and judgments of the Court of Justice (ChamberFourth) of June 5, 2019 and June 13, 2019) of the Court of Justice of theEU (CJEU).3. The user

retention times for telephone communications, the company stated that "these decisions are not taken by Deliveroo Italy but by the UK parent company" (see minutes

Pursuant to Article 108, § 1 of the LCA, this decision may be appealed to the Court of Markets (Brussels Court of Appeal) within 30 days of its notification

the day the decision was announced. If the appeal has been received in due time the Data Inspectorate forwards it to the Administrative Court in Stockholm

requests a substantive decision by the Administrative Court with regard to point A)II. Since a decision of the Administrative Court based on Section 42 para

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. Scotland, the monetary penalty

of the Court of Justice in the under the takedown requests to search engines, most recently the judgment Google, C-460/20. 20 In this, the Court states:

establishment has the power to have such decisions implemented, in which case the establishment having taken such decisions is to be considered to be the main

the remedial powers of Art. 58 Para. 2 GDPR (cf. again the decision of the Administrative Court of September 1, 2022, Ra 2022/04/0066) and the wording of

with the ordinary court of the place where the owner of the processing of personal data has his residence, or, alternatively, with the court of the place of

are interested in the decision was taken […]" 33See mutatis mutandis also Judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal (Market Court section) of 7 July 2021

the Court will thus examine the manner in which the investigation was carried out. 78. The Court observes that the Bucharest Sector 1 District Court held

2. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty i recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the penalty can be enforced