{"id":72486,"date":"2024-04-25T23:55:43","date_gmt":"2024-04-25T21:55:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-110\/"},"modified":"2024-05-12T00:33:50","modified_gmt":"2024-05-11T22:33:50","slug":"data-protection-insider-issue-110","status":"publish","type":"dpi","link":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/en\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-110\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Insider, Issue 110"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

– CJEU Rules on Non-Material Damages –<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

On 11th April 2024, the CJEU delivered its judgment in the case of GP v juris GmbH.<\/a> The case concerned a self-employed lawyer, who was a client of the legal database company juris. The plaintiff revoked all consents, and objected to the processing of their data for the purposes of marketing. Despite this, the plaintiff received further marketing leaflets. The plaintiff then \u2018reminded juris of his prior objection to any marketing,\u2026informed juris that the creation of those prospectuses had given rise to unlawful processing of his data and requested compensation for the damage suffered by him under Article 82 of the GDPR\u2019. A further advertising leaflet then arrived, after which the plaintiff \u2018reiterated his objection, which was this time served on juris by bailiff\u2019. Accordingly, the applicant brought proceedings before the national courts. The plaintiff sought \u2018on the basis of Article 82(1)\u2026compensation for his material damage, relating to the costs\u2026incurred by him, and for his non-material damage\u2019. The plaintiff claimed that \u2018that he\u2026suffered a loss of control over his personal data as a result of the processing of those data by juris despite his objections, and that he\u2019 was entitled \u2018to obtain compensation on that basis, without having to show the effects or gravity of the infringement of his rights, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Charter\u2019 and the GDPR. The defendant, however, claimed that \u2018it had indeed established a system for managing objections to marketing and that the late taking into account of those of the applicant\u2026was due either to the fact that one of its employees had not complied with the instructions given or to the fact that it would have been excessively onerous to take those objections into account\u2019 and that \u2018the mere breach of an obligation under the GDPR, such as that under Article 21(3) thereof, cannot, in itself, constitute \u2018damage\u2019 within the meaning of Article 82(1)\u2019. In this regard, four questions were referred to the CJEU, which the Court bundled into three sets of considerations:<\/p>\n