14 November 2022
Nicht genug geärgert für immateriellen Schadensersatz
Die in Art. 82 Abs. 1 DSGVO vorgesehene Ersatzfähigkeit immaterieller Schäden aus DSGVO-Verletzungen sorgt vor den Gerichten der Mitgliedstaaten für beträchtliche Unsicherheiten, was sich in gegenwärtig neun Vorabentscheidungsersuchen an den EuGH zu dieser Thematik äußert. In dem am weitesten fortgeschritten Verfahren wurden am 06.10.2022 die Schlussanträge von General Generalanwalt Sánchez-Bordona veröffentlicht, die bedauerlich wenig zur Debatte beitragen, teils an der Sache vorbei argumentieren und den Gerichten schlicht keine praktikable Lösung zu den gestellten Vorlagefragen liefern. Continue reading >>
3 
09 November 2022
Compensation for non-material damages under the GDPR
On 6 October 2022, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in case C‑300/21. At stake is the interpretation of Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation, which provides compensation for non-material damages. The Opinion opts for a strict interpretation of this provision, but a broader reading is possible, and even desirable, in light of the GDPR’s objectives and the many barriers impeding effective enforcement of data protection rights. Continue reading >>21 October 2022
Towards a data-subject-friendly interpretation of Article 82 GDPR
Under the GDPR, Article 82 is the only instrument to claim compensation resulting from data protection infringements. So far, it has not been interpreted by the CJEU. To date, nine preliminary references on the interpretation of Article 82 have been made by national courts. On 6 October 2022, Advocate General Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in one of them. Since it will be the first CJEU judgment on this subject, it will have a profound impact on the further development of EU data protection law, in particular, its private enforcement. Continue reading >>18 October 2022
Digital Autonomy in Contractual Relationships
It is rare for two Advocates General of the European Court of Justice to differ on the interpretation of a fundamental legal act of the European Union. This is what recently occurred with regard to the General Data Protection Regulation. Continue reading >>11 October 2021
The Writing is on the Wall
On 6 October 2021, Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe published his Opinion in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz. Six Schengen countries (Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have reintroduced border controls over the past years. If the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) were to follow the AG’s Opinion, they would need to seriously rethink their practices in this regard. New evidence-based procedures and serious reasons, capable of passing a proportionality test, would be necessary to introduce border controls within the Schengen Zone. Continue reading >>
0
01 March 2021
Preserving Prejudice in the Name of Profit
Few CJEU judgments in recent years have received more criticism than the ‘headscarf judgments’, Achbita and Bougnaoui. In particular the decision in Achbita that private employers can legitimately pursue a policy of neutrality and ban expressions of political, religious, or philosophical belief at work, proved contentious. Two other headscarf cases, IX v Wabe and MH Müller, are currently pending before the CJEU and provide it with an excellent opportunity to do so. However, the first signs are not promising: Last week, Advocate General Rantos delivered his Opinion in these cases, which may be even more unpalatable than the Achbita judgment itself. Continue reading >>03 September 2020
It’s Urgent
In a remarkable move, the Member States appointed, on 2 September 2020, an Advocate General put forward by Greece, who will enter into office on 7 September 2020 if Member States get their way. There is a ginormous problem with this move, as the office that this Advocate General will try to fill, as things stand, does not become vacant until October 2021. Eleanor Sharpston, the officeholder presently in situ, remains there until then. Any other reading of EU law is tantamount to the Member States sacking a member of the Court in direct violation of the primary law. This is a wholly unacceptable scenario in a Union grounded and predicated upon the rule of law. Urgent measures are thus necessary to save not only the legitimacy of the Court, but that of the EU. Continue reading >>29 June 2020
Frankenstein’s Court
Due to Brexit, the remaining 27 EU Member States would like to remove Eleanor Sharpston, an Advocate General nominated by the United Kingdom, from the CJEU. Many have criticized this idea, claiming that a removal would undermine the judicial independence of the Court. This post argues that the position taken by the EU 27 to remove Eleanor Sharpston from the Court is actually well-reasoned and lawful while leaving her in office would lead to strange consequences e.g. that the Judges of the Court are less protected than its Advocate Generals. Continue reading >>23 February 2020