Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1) - Power of Member States to restrict the scope of certain rights and obligations - Requirement of prior review by a court or independent administrative body whose decision is binding - Identity data associated with an IP address

Appeal to the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18 - alleged infringement of Article 107 TFEU - tax rulings at issue conferred a ‘selective’ advantage in the light of the ‘narrow’ reference framework used by the Commission - discrimination between cross-border transactions and purely national transactions - legal classification of ‘selectivity’ by the General Court

The request for a preliminary ruling issued by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) pertains to the question as to whether or not an online social network such as Facebook can use all of the personal data obtained for the purposes of targeted advertising, without restriction as to time and without distinction as to type of data. The refering Court asked if:

1. The principle of data minimisation under Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR should mean that all personal data held by a platform may be aggregated analysed and processed for the purposes of targeted advertising without any restriction;
   
2. Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR read in conjunction with Art. 9(2)(e) GDPR should mean that a statement made by a person about their sexual orientation for the purposes of a panel discussion permits a controller to process other data concerning their sexual orientation to offer them …

References for preliminary ruling - Primacy of EU law – Lack of jurisdiction of a national court to examine the conformity with EU law of national legislation found to be constitutional by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned – Disciplinary proceedings

European Arrest Warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Interpretation of Art. 27(3)(g) and (4) – Request for consent to extension of the offences – and Ar. 28(3) – Request for consent to subsequent surrender – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection – Right to be heard of the person surrendered – Place where that right is exercised – Procedures

The case was joined with Case C-428/21 PPU

The Case was joined with Case C-429/21 - See description there

Questions referred:

Is Art. 55 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (‘the CISA’) compatible with Art. 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and does it continue to be valid in so far as it admits, as an exception to the prohibition of double prosecution, that a Contracting Party may, when ratifying, accepting or approving that Convention, declare that it is not bound by Article 54 of the CISA where the acts to which the foreign judgment relates constitute an offence against national security or other equally significant interests of that Contracting Party?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Do Articles 54 and 55 of the CISA and Articles 50 and 52 of the Charter preclude an interpretation by the German courts of the declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany when …

Questions referred:

Is national legislation (Article 251b(1) of the Zakon za elektronnite saobshtenia (Law on electronic communications)) providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic data (traffic data and location data of users of electronic means of communication) for a period of 6 months in order to fight serious crime compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in combination with Article 5(1) and recital 11 thereof, provided that the national legislation contains certain safeguards?

Is national legislation (Article 159a of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure)) which does not limit access to traffic data to what is strictly necessary and does not grant the persons whose traffic data are accessed by the law enforcement authorities the right to be notified thereof, provided that that does not impede criminal proceedings, or the right to a legal remedy …

Right to be present at trial under Directive 2016/343 - Testimony given by a witness before a judge at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings in the absence of the accused persons or their representatives – Impossibility for the accused persons and their representatives to examine witnesses for the prosecution at the trial stage of criminal proceedings.

Questions referred:

Is the right of the accused person to be present in person under Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with Article 10(1) and recital 44 thereof, safeguarded where a witness has been examined in the absence of the accused person at a separate hearing but the accused person had the opportunity to put questions to that witness at the subsequent hearing but stated that he or she had no questions, or is it necessary, in order to safeguard the right to be present in person, for that examination to be repeated in its entirety, including the questions put by the other parties who were present at the first examination?

Is the right to be defended by a lawyer under Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48, read in conjunction with Article 12(1) thereof, safeguarded where two witnesses have …

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Responsibility of the controller – Security of processing – Breach of security of the processing of personal data – Non-material damage suffered as a result of the controller’s inaction – Action for damages

Scope of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions regarding the administrative sanction of suspension of the right to drive a vehicle for a specified period imposed in judicial criminal proceedings for road offences.

Extradition to third countries - non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - citizenship of the European Union - applicability of judgment in Raugevicius in case of international obligations to extradite - German declaration under Art. 6 of the 1957 CoE Convention on Extradition not to surrender "own nationals" - Art. 16 of the German Basic Law

Compatibility of national implementation legislation with Directive (EU) 2016/680 ("the EU's Law Enforcement Data Protection Directive") - Permissibility of processing of genetic and biometric data for the purposes of creating a police record - Forced collection of personal data (taking photographs for the file, taking fingerprints, and taking samples in order to create a DNA profile) - Refusal to voluntarily cooperate in the collection of personal data - Lack of assessment of the criminal charge by the national criminal court - Compatibility of the general rule on taking specific personal data for premediated offences with the Directive

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 42a §§ 1 and 2 of the Ustawa prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law on the system of ordinary courts; ‘the LSOC’), as well as Article 55 § 4 thereof; Article 26 § 3 of the Ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court), as well as Article 29 §§ 2 and 3 thereof; and Article 5 §§ 1a and 1b of the Ustawa o sądach administracyjnych (Law on the administrative courts), in the wording resulting from the Ustawa z dnia 20 grudnia 2019 r. – Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law of 20 December 2019 amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws; …

Questions referred:

1. Are Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting legislation of a Member State under which, in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings, the national court may impose a penalty on a legal person for a specific criminal offence the commission of which has not yet been established because it is the subject of parallel criminal proceedings which have not been definitively concluded?
2. Are Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting legislation of a Member State under which, in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings, the national court may impose a penalty on a legal person by …