Monitoring References to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Tag
10 case reports
A Dutch foundation is suing four Amazon companies for GDPR damages on behalf of everyone affected, without any of them having asked it to. The Rechtbank Rotterdam asks whether Article 80 of the GDPR — which lets a data subject 'mandate' a body to act — leaves room for the Dutch opt-out class action, and for the extra conditions Dutch law imposes on who may bring it.
A Facebook user's name, gender, user ID and phone number turned up on the internet, scraped and published by a third party. The Landgericht Erfurt asks whether that bare fact — the loss of control over one's data, even briefly — is non-material damage under Article 82 of the GDPR, and whether it matters that most of the data were already public.
By judgment of 15 March 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:185) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By Grand Chamber judgment of 17 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:766) the Court held that a legal person claiming injury from online publications may sue for its entire damage where it has its centre of interests, and that claims for rectification and removal…
On 27 September 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:724) that where co-defendants in different Member States are sued over the same supply chain, a Community-design court can grant remedies with EU-wide effect against both.
By judgment of 25 January 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:36) the Court held that Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive does not preclude national legislation allowing a copyright holder to claim, without proving actual loss, a lump sum of twice the hypothetical…
On 17 March 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:173) that a rightholder claiming damages on the hypothetical-royalty basis of Article 13(1)(b) of the Enforcement Directive may additionally claim compensation for moral prejudice — the licence-fee measure…
On 16 June 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:449) that purely financial damage which materialises directly in the claimant's bank account cannot, by itself, anchor jurisdiction as the "place where the harmful event occurred" under Article 5(3) of…
By judgment of 27 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:821) the Court held that it has jurisdiction to interpret harmonised technical standards adopted under the Construction Products Directive — EN 13242 forms part of EU law for preliminary-ruling purposes —…
By judgment of 9 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:419) the Court held that "reasonable compensation" for infringing a Community plant variety right covers the fee that would have been due for licensed production plus damage actually suffered, but includes no…