the link's fairly remote, the referring court had some doubts related to Article 2(1) point 19 of Directive 97/67/EC, but it won't be dealt with in the judgment. IIRC the AG mentions something about why DP doesn't matter in the opinion
December 8, 2025 at 2:27 PM
the link's fairly remote, the referring court had some doubts related to Article 2(1) point 19 of Directive 97/67/EC, but it won't be dealt with in the judgment. IIRC the AG mentions something about why DP doesn't matter in the opinion
if you meant AGCOM there was something about DP in the request for preliminary ruling but the AG just skipped the DP angle altogether
December 8, 2025 at 2:12 PM
if you meant AGCOM there was something about DP in the request for preliminary ruling but the AG just skipped the DP angle altogether
Jautiva? curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
curia.europa.eu
December 8, 2025 at 2:10 PM
Jautiva? curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
18/12/2025 Judgment C-422/24 Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, too
December 8, 2025 at 10:26 AM
18/12/2025 Judgment C-422/24 Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, too
Good question, I also wondered and I’m not sure - in French they used “valable”, and in Romanian “întemeiat”, so I don’t think “valid” is a translation issue 🤷♂️
December 2, 2025 at 7:23 PM
Good question, I also wondered and I’m not sure - in French they used “valable”, and in Romanian “întemeiat”, so I don’t think “valid” is a translation issue 🤷♂️
My main hope is to find it that the case-law about (joint) control, but I'm also finding it very hard right now (then again, this is quite fresh, an afternoon is not enough time to do so for me).
December 2, 2025 at 6:49 PM
My main hope is to find it that the case-law about (joint) control, but I'm also finding it very hard right now (then again, this is quite fresh, an afternoon is not enough time to do so for me).
Ah consistency is overrated, anyway, and so is not violating the Charter (-> data retention).
> the internet as it exists being dismantled
You say it as if it were a bad thing ^^
> the internet as it exists being dismantled
You say it as if it were a bad thing ^^
December 2, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Ah consistency is overrated, anyway, and so is not violating the Charter (-> data retention).
> the internet as it exists being dismantled
You say it as if it were a bad thing ^^
> the internet as it exists being dismantled
You say it as if it were a bad thing ^^
IMO: no, yes. FWIW I think going gung ho with interpreting CJEU judgments in the most expansive (or perverse) fashion might backfire (see e.g. the path from Breyer & Nowak to Scania & SRB to the Omnibus).
December 2, 2025 at 6:33 PM
IMO: no, yes. FWIW I think going gung ho with interpreting CJEU judgments in the most expansive (or perverse) fashion might backfire (see e.g. the path from Breyer & Nowak to Scania & SRB to the Omnibus).
I'm not sure that the judgment is necessarily to be interpreted as automatically equating 'normal internet users' and all hosting providers with advertisers on an online marketplace either, to be honest.
December 2, 2025 at 6:25 PM
I'm not sure that the judgment is necessarily to be interpreted as automatically equating 'normal internet users' and all hosting providers with advertisers on an online marketplace either, to be honest.
I'm not gonna hip-shoot, one way or the other, I just stopped by to say that consent is not the only ground there is :) it gets iffier to find a legal basis with sensitive data, but anyway.
December 2, 2025 at 6:18 PM
I'm not gonna hip-shoot, one way or the other, I just stopped by to say that consent is not the only ground there is :) it gets iffier to find a legal basis with sensitive data, but anyway.
nah whatever's AI gets a 'get out of data protection free' card and 200$
December 2, 2025 at 5:02 PM
nah whatever's AI gets a 'get out of data protection free' card and 200$
If you're that kind of student please stop, whatever you think about yourself *I can promise you it's beneath you*. You have it in you to be excellent and awesome. I can also promise you you're not alone: reach out, all my peers are here to help, *we love it*, otherwise we'd do something else.
December 2, 2025 at 2:50 PM
If you're that kind of student please stop, whatever you think about yourself *I can promise you it's beneath you*. You have it in you to be excellent and awesome. I can also promise you you're not alone: reach out, all my peers are here to help, *we love it*, otherwise we'd do something else.
Yes that's what I understood
December 2, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Yes that's what I understood
my French is bad but, if I'm not mistaken, the answer to Q2 and Q3 focuses on sensitive data specifically, while the answer to Q1 doesn't seem limited to special categories of personal data
December 2, 2025 at 11:09 AM
my French is bad but, if I'm not mistaken, the answer to Q2 and Q3 focuses on sensitive data specifically, while the answer to Q1 doesn't seem limited to special categories of personal data
take that, Szpunar
🥰
🥰
December 2, 2025 at 10:33 AM
take that, Szpunar
🥰
🥰
Good point re. law and IP filtering.
Surely they were careful not to extend it to UGC in the judgment, yeah? :v
Be it as it may, if the choice is between coherence with the Charter and the preceding case-law on the one hand and BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD on the other I know where I stand.
Surely they were careful not to extend it to UGC in the judgment, yeah? :v
Be it as it may, if the choice is between coherence with the Charter and the preceding case-law on the one hand and BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD on the other I know where I stand.
December 2, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Good point re. law and IP filtering.
Surely they were careful not to extend it to UGC in the judgment, yeah? :v
Be it as it may, if the choice is between coherence with the Charter and the preceding case-law on the one hand and BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD on the other I know where I stand.
Surely they were careful not to extend it to UGC in the judgment, yeah? :v
Be it as it may, if the choice is between coherence with the Charter and the preceding case-law on the one hand and BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD on the other I know where I stand.
ooh right, looking forward to reading this one
afaik (or iirc?) the prohibition of general monitoring has been progressively been emptied out by the CJEU's IP case-law. Not sure if I'm against that or not, I'll make up my mind over the next 12 years or so.
afaik (or iirc?) the prohibition of general monitoring has been progressively been emptied out by the CJEU's IP case-law. Not sure if I'm against that or not, I'll make up my mind over the next 12 years or so.
December 2, 2025 at 9:36 AM
ooh right, looking forward to reading this one
afaik (or iirc?) the prohibition of general monitoring has been progressively been emptied out by the CJEU's IP case-law. Not sure if I'm against that or not, I'll make up my mind over the next 12 years or so.
afaik (or iirc?) the prohibition of general monitoring has been progressively been emptied out by the CJEU's IP case-law. Not sure if I'm against that or not, I'll make up my mind over the next 12 years or so.