Articles for tag: Datenschutz, DSGVO, EuGH, Generalanwalt

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.

21. Oktober 2022

, , ,

A Chernobyl Case for our Times

On 10 October 2022, René Repasi, a member of the European Parliament, brought a case against the European Commission before the EU General Court. The key question of the case is procedural: Does an individual MEP have standing to claim before the Court that an EU act has been based on the wrong legal basis, if the choice of legal basis affects an MEP’s participatory rights. If Mr. Repasi succeeds, his case could significantly strengthen the Court’s role in protecting the rights of the minority in the European Parliament. It could introduce a new type of player to EU institutional legal battles – the MEP – and establish a sort of Organstreitverfahren for individual MEPs.

18. Oktober 2022

, , ,

Repasi vs Plaumann

,

&

On 10 October 2022 MEP René Repasi lodged an action for annulment against the complementary taxonomy delegated regulation 2022/1214. The same regulation is also challenged by Austria, a privileged applicant under Article 263 TFEU. This post focuses on the issue which MEP Repasi himself has noted is the most innovative of his action, namely the question whether an individual MEP has special legal standing to challenge an act (of the Commission) that affects how that MEP fulfils his parliamentary function.

18. Oktober 2022

, , , ,

Mobilized to Commit War Crimes?

In that earlier post, I argued that states have a legal obligation to recognize the refugee status of Russian troops who flee to avoid participating in what is a war of aggression. That argument applies equally to this new scenario. Those who refuse to fight and who leave Russia to avoid doing so should be recognized as refugees.  However, there is now an additional way to ground that claim.

27. September 2022

, , ,

Seenotrettung vor dem EuGH

Gegen das Instrument der Hafenstaatkontrolle, mit dem Italien NGO-Schiffe regelmäßig festsetzte, hatten die NGOs Sea-Eye und Sea-Watch 2020 vor italienischen Verwaltungsgerichten geklagt. In den von Sea-Watch betriebenen Verfahren hatte das Regionale Verwaltungsgericht Sizilien dem EuGH zwei Vorabentscheidungsersuchen vorgelegt. Anfang August erging nun das Urteil des EuGH. Der Gerichtshof präzisiert darin die europarechtlichen Vorschriften zur Hafenstaatkontrolle, trägt zur Auslegung der einschlägigen seevölkerrechtlichen Normen bei und grenzt die Verantwortungsbereiche von Flaggen- und Hafenstaaten voneinander ab.

30. August 2022

, , , ,

NGOs in distress

During the summer of 2020, two ships operated by the non-governmental organization Sea Watch reached Italian shores after rescuing migrants in distress at sea. Upon arrival, both ships were detained at two Sicilian ports. Sea Watch brought two legal actions for the annulment of the detention measures. On 1 August 2022, the CJEU delivered its judgement on the case.

24. August 2022

, , , , ,