Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015

Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner

Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 47 — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 25 and 28 — Transfer of personal data to third countries — Decision 2000/520/EC — Transfer of personal data to the United States — Inadequate level of protection — Validity — Complaint by an individual whose data has been transferred from the European Union to the United States — Powers of the national supervisory authorities

Case C-362/14


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
13/11/2015 Schrems
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2015:650
06/10/2015 Schrems
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2015:650
06/10/2015 Schrems
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2015:627
23/09/2015 Schrems
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
19/09/2014 Schrems
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.04 Fundamental rights
    1.04.02 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
      1.04.02.00 General
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.07 Interpretation of EU law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
2 Institutional framework of the European Union
  2.05 Legal acts of the European Union
    2.05.00 General
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.03 Effects of a preliminary ruling
      3.04.03.01 Rulings providing an interpretation
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.01 Directives concerning approximation of law
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.04 Fundamental rights
    1.04.03 The fundamental rights
      1.04.03.07 Respect for private and family life
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.04 Fundamental rights
    1.04.03 The fundamental rights
      1.04.03.08 Protection of personal data


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 7 : paragraphs 1, 37 - 106
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 : paragraphs 1, 37 - 106
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 -P1 : paragraphs 58, 72
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 -P3 : paragraphs 40, 47, 53, 54, 58, 65
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 47 : paragraphs 1, 37 - 106
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 47 -L1 : paragraph 95
  • TFEU, Article 16 -P2 : paragraph 40
  • TFEU, Article 288 -L4 : paragraph 51
  • Directive 95/46 : paragraph 38
  • Directive 95/46 -A02LB : paragraph 45
  • Directive 95/46 -A25 : paragraphs 46, 50, 56, 67, 78, 100
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P1 : paragraphs 48, 68
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P2 : paragraphs 70, 75
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P6 : paragraphs 1, 37 - 106
  • Directive 95/46 -A26 : paragraph 46
  • Directive 95/46 -A28 : paragraphs 1, 37 - 106
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P1 : paragraphs 40, 44
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P3 : paragraph 43
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P3L1 : paragraph 65
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P3L2 : paragraph 64
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P4 : paragraphs 53, 59, 62
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P4L1 : paragraph 55
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P6 : paragraph 44
  • Directive 95/46 -C2 : paragraph 39
  • Directive 95/46 -C10 : paragraph 39
  • Directive 95/46 -C56 : paragraph 48
  • Directive 95/46 -C57 : paragraph 49
  • Directive 95/46 -C60 : paragraph 46
  • Directive 95/46 -C62 : paragraph 41
  • Directive 95/46 -C63 : paragraph 43
  • Decision 2000/520 : paragraphs 1, 37, 67 - 106
  • Decision 2000/520 -A01 : paragraphs 79 - 98, 105
  • Decision 2000/520 -A01P1 : paragraph 79
  • Decision 2000/520 -A01P2 : paragraph 80
  • Decision 2000/520 -A01P3 : paragraph 80
  • Decision 2000/520 -A02 : paragraphs 83, 105
  • Decision 2000/520 -A03 : paragraphs 99 - 106
  • Decision 2000/520 -A03P1L1 : paragraphs 100 - 102
  • Decision 2000/520 -A04 : paragraph 105
  • Decision 2000/520 -N1L2 : paragraph 82
  • Decision 2000/520 -N1L4 : paragraphs 84, 87
  • Decision 2000/520 -N2 : paragraph 79
  • Decision 2000/520 -N4TITB : paragraph 85
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -294/83 -N23 : paragraph 95
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/84 -N18 : paragraph 95
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/84 -N19 : paragraph 95
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -249/85 -N17 : paragraph 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/85 -N15 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/85 -N16 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/85 -N17 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/85 -N18 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/85 -N19 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/85 -N20 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/86 -N14 : paragraph 95
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -465/00 -N68 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -101/01 -N63 : paragraph 46
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -475/01 -N18 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -317/04 -N56 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -344/04 -N27 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -428/06 -N80 : paragraph 95
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/07 -N24 : paragraph 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/07 -N25 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -553/07 -N47 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -188/10 -N54 : paragraph 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -533/10 -N40 : paragraph 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -584/10 -N66 : paragraph 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -614/10 -N36 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -583/11 -N91 : paragraph 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/12 -N53 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/12 -N66 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/12 -N68 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/12 -N74 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/12 -N56 : paragraph 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -288/12 -N47 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -288/12 -N48 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -288/12 -N51 : paragraph 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 : paragraph 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N33 : paragraph 87
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N39 : paragraph 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N47 : paragraph 78
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N48 : paragraph 78
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N52 : paragraph 92
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N53 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N54 : paragraph 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N55 : paragraph 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N57 : paragraph 93
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N58 : paragraph 93
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N59 : paragraph 93
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N60 : paragraph 93
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N61 : paragraph 93
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 -N68 : paragraph 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -69/13 -N23 : paragraph 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -212/13 -N29 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -456/13 -N48 : paragraph 64

Operative part

Opinion

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007) : points 85, 99, 159
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 4 : point 103
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 7 : points 47, 52, 105, 120, 123, 174, 177, 181, 192, 200, 203, 214, 215, 236, 237
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 : points 47, 52, 105, 113, 120, 148, 170, 174, 177, 181, 200, 203, 214, 215, 226, 236, 237
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 -P1 : point 192
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 -P2 : point 52
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 -P3 : points 52, 67, 72, 79, 104, 115, 207
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 47 : points 47, 174, 215, 236
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 52 -P1 : points 176, 181, 184, 215
  • TFEU, Article 267 : points 125, 126
  • TFEU, Article 288 -L4 : point 83
  • TEU, Article 16 -P2 : point 67
  • Directive 95/46 : points 2, 66, 74, 76, 85, 94, 97, 99, 121, 142, 159, 226
  • Directive 95/46 -A01 : points 70, 96
  • Directive 95/46 -A01P1 : points 95, 108
  • Directive 95/46 -A13 : point 209
  • Directive 95/46 -A13P1 : points 194, 195
  • Directive 95/46 -A25 : points 86, 89, 108, 139, 148, 210, 233
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P1 : points 75, 78, 146
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P2 : points 82, 87, 146, 149, 150
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P3 : points 91, 146
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P4 : point 232
  • Directive 95/46 -A25P6 : points 47, 48, 51, 61, 71, 79, 80, 87, 92, 104, 107, 116, 120, 134, 141, 149, 150, 160, 188, 229, 237
  • Directive 95/46 -A28 : points 51, 61, 70, 79, 120, 205, 237
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P1 : point 77
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P1L1 : point 64
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P1L2 : points 64, 68
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P3 : points 65, 94, 104, 114 - 116, 119
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P4L1 : points 66, 92
  • Directive 95/46 -A28P4L2 : points 66, 209
  • Directive 95/46 -A29 : point 210
  • Directive 95/46 -A31P2 : point 233
  • Directive 95/46 -C10 : points 70, 96
  • Directive 95/46 -C3 : point 96
  • Directive 95/46 -C57 : point 231
  • Directive 95/46 -C62 : point 63
  • Directive 95/46 -C8 : point 96
  • Decision 2000/520 : points 2, 47, 56 - 59, 83, 85, 121 - 136, 151, 161, 166 - 168, 183, 208, 214 - 237
  • Decision 2000/520 -A03P1LB : points 109 - 115, 118
  • Decision 2000/520 -A03P4 : point 221
  • Decision 2000/520 -A04P1 : point 222
  • Decision 2000/520 -A05 : point 84
  • Decision 2000/520 -A06 : point 84
  • Decision 2000/520 -C8 : point 110
  • Decision 2000/520 -C9 : point 220
  • Decision 2000/520 -N1L4 : points 162, 174, 177, 178, 184, 194, 195, 202
  • Regulation 343/2003 : points 101, 103
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52013DC0846 : point 1
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52013DC0847 : point 153
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -16/65 : point 126
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/76 : point 126
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/79 : point 126
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/95 : point 236
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -449/98 : point 131
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -465/00 : point 170
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -101/01 : point 108
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -511/03 : point 236
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -317/04 : point 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -317/04 : point 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -504/04 : point 235
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -402/05 : point 169
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -457/05 : point 126
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/07 : point 131
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -518/07 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -247/08 : point 132
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -140/09 : point 152
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -411/10 : points 100 - 102, 104
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -533/10 : point 127
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -614/10 : points 67, 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/12 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/12 : point 99
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -288/12 : points 67, 68, 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/12 : points 67, 170, 177, 186, 191, 198, 203, 208
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -473/12 : point 96


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 25/07/2014

Date of the Opinion

  • 23/09/2015

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

06/10/2015


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 398 from 30.11.2015, p.5

Application: OJ C 351 from 06.10.2014, p.5

Name of the parties

Schrems

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Padova, Yann: La Cour de justice de l'Union européenne va-t-elle invalider les accords Safe Harbour ?, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2014 nº 110 p.14-16 (FR)
  2. Blume, Peter: Overførsel af personoplysninger, Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen B 2015 p.417-420 (DA)
  3. Marx, Lorenz ; Wüsthof, Lucas: CJEU shuts down Safe Harbor for Transatlantic Data Transfer – Case EUGH Aktenzeichen C-362/14 Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 2015 p.242-245 (EN)
  4. Mantelero, Alessandro: L'ECJ invalida l'accordo per il trasferimento dei dati personali fra EU ed USA. Quali scenari per i cittadini ed imprese?, Contratto e impresa / Europa 2015 p.719-733 (IT)
  5. Skubic, Zoran: Integriteta načela varnega pristana osebnih podatkov obvarovana tudi po slovenski zaslugi, Pravna praksa 2015 nº 41 p.24-26 (SL)
  6. Torres, Chloé: Conséquences de l'invalidation du Safe Harbor par la CJUE, La Semaine Juridique - entreprise et affaires 2015 nº 48 p.5-6 (FR)
  7. Salvatore, Vincenzo: La Corte di giustizia restituisce (temporaneamente) agli Stati membri la competenza a valutare l'adeguatezza del livello di protezione dei dati personali soggetti a trasferimento verso gli Stati Uniti, Studi sull'integrazione europea 2015 nº 3 p.623-640 (IT)
  8. Sauron, Jean-Luc: L'affaire Schrems, Gazette du Palais 2015 nº 301 à 302 Jur. p.7-10 (FR)
  9. Griguer, Merav: Invalidation du Safe Harbor : quel impact pour les entreprises ?, Cahiers de droit de l'entreprise 2015 nº 06 p.70-72 (FR)
  10. Moos, Flemming ; Schefzig, Jens: "Safe Harbor" hat Schiffbruch erlitten, Computer Law Review International | Computer und Recht 2015 p.625-633 (DE)
  11. Quéméner, Myriam: La fin du Safe Harbor au nom de la protection des données personnelles : enjeux et perspectives, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2015 nº 120 p.22-24 (FR)
  12. Derieux, Emmanuel: Encadrement du transfert de données personnelles de l'Union européenne vers les États-Unis d'Amérique, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2015 nº 120 p.25-29 (FR)
  13. Padova, Yann: Le Safe Harbor est invalide. Et après ? Analyse des fondements de l'arrêt de la CJUE et de ses conséquences, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2015 nº 120 p.50-64 (FR)
  14. Zeno-Zencovich, Vincenzo: Intorno alla decisione nel caso Schrems : la sovranità digitale e il governo internazionale delle reti di telecomunicazione, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2015 p.683-696 (IT)
  15. Resta, Giorgio: La sorveglianza elettronica di massa e il conflitto regolatorio USA/UE, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2015 p.697-718 (IT)
  16. Comella, Cosimo: Alcune considerazioni sugli aspetti tecnologici della sorveglianza di massa, a margine della sentenza "Safe Harbor" della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione Europea, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2015 p.719-740 (IT)
  17. Pollicino, Oreste ; Bassini, Marco: La Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea nel reasoning dei giudici di Lussemburgo, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2015 p.741-777 (IT)
  18. Finocchiaro, Giusella: La giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia in materia di dati personali da Google Spain a Schrems, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2015 p.779-799 (IT)
  19. Piroddi, Paola: I trasferimenti di dati personali verso Paesi terzi dopo la sentenza Schrems e nel nuovo regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2015 p.827-864 (IT)
  20. Steenbruggen, Wilfred ; Van Harten, Sonja: safe Harbour is dood. Lang leve Safe Harbour 2.0?, Mediaforum: Tijdschrift voor Media- en Communicatierecht 2015 p.281-285 (NL)
  21. Drijber, Berend Jan: De safe harbour die niet veilig bleek-institutionele aspecten, Mediaforum: Tijdschrift voor Media- en Communicatierecht 2015 p.285-287 (NL)
  22. De Simone, Ruggero: Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea, Grande Sezione, sentenza 6 ottobre 2015, in causa C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems c. Data Protection Commissioner, Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario 2015 p.1793-1795 (IT)
  23. Wolfbauer, Veronika ; Leissler, Günter: Rote Ampel am Datenhighway: Der EuGH kippt "Safe Harbor", Ecolex 2015 p.1117-1118 (DE)
  24. Tinière, Romain: Cour de justice, gde ch., 6 octobre 2015, Schrems, aff. C-362/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2015 (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2015 p.149-153 (FR)
  25. El Khoury, Alessandro: The Safe Harbour is not a Legitimate Tool Anymore. What Lies in the Future of EU-USA Data Transfers?, European Journal of Risk Regulation 2015 p.6 Nº 4 p.659 - 664 (EN)
  26. Berger, Maria ; Maderbacher, Gregor: Übermittlung personenbezogener Daten an „Safe Harbor“-Unternehmen nicht ohne Weiteres zulässig, Österreichische Juristenzeitung 2015 p.1125 (DE)
  27. Kardachaki, Alexia: Schrems (Facebook). Transfer of personal data to the United States. Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid. Court of Justice, Highlights & Insights on European Taxation 2015 nº 12 p.28-31 (EN)
  28. Retter, Kurt ; Marko, Roland: Nach der Aufhebung der Safe-Harbor-Entscheidung - was jetzt?, Österreichisches Recht der Wirtschaft 2015 p.691-695 (DE)
  29. Škrinjar Vidović, Marina: Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (Case C-362/14): Empowering National Data Protection Authorities, CROATION YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW & POLICY 2015 Vol. 11 p.259-275 (EN)
  30. Vlachopoulos, Spyros: Diavivasi prosopikon dedomenon stis IPA, Dioikitiki Diki 2015 p.903-904 (EL)
  31. Theodoridis, Konstantinos P.: Ypothesi Schrems: i apodomisi tou asfalous limena, Elliniki Epitheorisi Evropaïkou Dikaiou 2015 p.447-449 (EL)
  32. Perraki, Panagiota Emm.: Dedomena prosopikou charaktira, Elliniki Epitheorisi Evropaïkou Dikaiou 2015 p.491-496 (EL)
  33. Richter, Frederick: Aus Sicht der Stiftung Datenschutz – Safe Harbor – Das Grundproblem bleibt, PinG - Privacy in Germany 2015 p.249-250 (DE)
  34. Bergt, Matthias: EuGH: Safe Harbor-Abkommen ist Ungültig, Multimedia und Recht 2015 p.759-762 (DE)
  35. Ambrock, Jens: Nach Safe Harbor: Schiffbruch des transatlantischen Datenverkehrs?, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2015 p.1493-1497 (DE)
  36. Simon, Denys: Protection des données personnelles, Europe 2015 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.10-12 (FR)
  37. Dumitraşcu, Augustina: Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, Curierul Judiciar 2015 p.682-683 (RO)
  38. Debet, Anne: L'invalidation du Safe Harbor par la CJUE : tempête sur les transferts de données vers les États-Unis, La Semaine Juridique - édition générale 2015 nº 46-47 p.2108-2111 (FR)
  39. Carrera, Sergio ; Guild, Elspeth: The End of Safe Harbor: What Future for EU-US Data Transfers?, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2015 p.651-655 (EN)
  40. Weisser, Ralf ; Färber, Claus: Kein „Sicherer Hafen“ für Daten in den USA, Der Betrieb 2015 p.2621-2622 (DE)
  41. Bergt, Matthias: Das Ende von "Safe Harbor" - und neue Perspektiven?, Betriebs-Berater 2015 Heft 42/2015 p.I (DE)
  42. Domke, Carsten: Was bedeutet die Safe-Harbor-Entscheidung des EuGH für Unternehmen und ihre Personalabteilungen?, Betriebs-Berater 2015 p.2804-2807 (DE)
  43. Fuchs, Jana C.: Personenbezogene Daten zwischen der EU und den USA, Betriebs-Berater 2015 p.3074-3079 (DE)
  44. Bergt, Matthias: Safe Harbor und der EuGH als Bundesverfassungsgericht 2.0, Informationfreiheit und Informationsrecht - Jahrbuch 2015 (Ed. Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH - Berlin) 2015 p.303-319 (DE)
  45. Kühling, Jürgen: Datenfestung EU vs. unsicherer Hafen USA, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2015 Heft 43 p.3 (DE)
  46. Borges, Georg: Datentransfer in die USA nach Safe Harbor, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2015 Heft 50 p.3617-3621 (DE)
  47. Frenz, Walter: Ultra-vires-Kontrolle kraft Europarechts - Das Schrems-Urteil des EuGH im Vergleich zum OMT-Beschluss des BVerfG, Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2015 Heft 5 p.257-262 (DE)
  48. Schweinoch, Martin: Keine Übermittlung personenbezogener Daten in Drittland, das kein angemessenes Schutzniveau gewährleistet - Die Safe Harbor-Entscheidung (USA) der Kommis-sion verletzt Art. 7, 8 und 47 EGRC und entzieht den nationalen Kontrollstellen nach der RL 95/46/EG zustehende Kontrollbefugnisse - "Schrems", Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2015 Heft 5 p.274-277 (DE)
  49. Orantek, Kerstin: Hafen im Sturm - Das (vorläufige) Ende von Safe Harbor, MR-Int : Internationale Rundschau zum Medienrecht, IP- & IT-Recht 2015 p.79-82 (DE)
  50. Peyrou, Sylvie: La Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, à l'avant-garde de la défense des droits numériques, Journal de droit européen 2015 nº 224 p.395-398 (FR)
  51. Le Divelec, Florent: Charte des droits fondamentaux - Protection des données personnelles - Safe Harbor (Sphère de sécurité), Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2015 nº 4 p.673-680 (FR)
  52. Schuster, Fabian ; Hunzinger, Sven: Zulässigkeit von Datenübertragungen in die USA nach dem Safe-Harbor-Urteil, Computer und Recht 2015 p.787-794 (DE)
  53. Ewert, Armin: Das Safe-Harbour-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs und seine Folgen, European Law Reporter 2015 p.187-193 (DE)
  54. Kettemann, Matthias C.: Kein "Like" aus Luxemburg für den "sicheren Hafen", Juridikum : Zeitschrift im Rechtsstaat 2015 p.412-416 (DE)
  55. Domokos, Márton ; Polefkó, Patrik: Egy bírósági döntés következményei - avagy az Európai Bíróság ún. Schrems döntésének hatásai, a Safe Harbor sorsa és a felmerülő kérdések az adatvédelem területén, Infokommunikáció és jog 2015 nº 64 p.123-132 (HU)
  56. Tracol, Xavier: “Invalidator” strikes back: The harbour has never been safe, Computer Law & Security Review (Ed. Elsevier Ltd.) 2016 p.1-18 (EN)
  57. Rosselló Rubert, Francisca María: La transferencia de datos personales entre PYMEs españolas y proveedores norteamericanos de Cloud Computing tras la reciente anulación del Acuerdo Safe HArbor por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, Diario La ley 2016 nº 174 p.12-19 (ES)
  58. Gloudemans-Voogd, Nathalie: Hoe sla je data veilig op;, Advocatenblad 2016 p.40-42 (NL)
  59. Reichel, Jane: Nationella dataskyddsmyndigheter som lagprövare av EU-rätten – En analys av EU-domstolens dom i mål C-362/14, Schrems (Safe-harbor-målet), Förvaltningsrättslig tidskrift 2016 Nr 1 p.161-169 (SV)
  60. Massey, Rohan: The US-EU safe harbor framework is invalid: now what?, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2016 p.1-4 (EN)
  61. Weichert, Thilo: Safe Harbor – was ist zu tun?, Verbraucher und Recht 2016 p.1-2 (DE)
  62. Wolff, Heinrich Amadeus ; Stemmer, Bastian: Die Entscheidung der Kommission zur Angemessenheit des Datenschutzniveaus in den USA, Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter 2016 p.181-187 (DE)
  63. Moerel, Lokke: De betekenis van de Safe Harbor uitspraak van het Europese Hof voor datadoorgiftes naar de VS, Nederlands juristenblad 2016 Afl. 17 p.1174-1183 (NL)
  64. Podpečan, Mitja: Nazaj v informacijsko prihodnost, Pravna praksa 2016 nº 20-21 p.6-8 (SL)
  65. Voigt, Paul ; Posedel, Jeremiah: Safe Harbor invalidated – What next?, PinG - Privacy in Germany 2016 p.40-444 (EN)
  66. M. Black, James ; Damiano, Mark: Now What Did Facebook Do to the Internet? The Invalidation of the US Safe Harbor Agreement, European Law Reporter 2016 p.26-32 (DE, EN)
  67. Van Daalen, O.L.: Het Schrems/Facebook-arrest en de gevolgen voor internationale doorgifte, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2016 p.75-80 (NL)
  68. Giattini, Antonio: La tutela dei dati personali davanti alla Corte di giustizia dell'UE : il caso Schrems e l'invalidità del sistema di "approdo sicuro", Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 2016 p.247-253 (IT)
  69. Álvarez Caro, María: La declaración de invalidez del acuerdo de puerto seguro entre la UE y los EEUU por el TJUE (C-362/14), Revista española de Derecho Europeo 2016 nº 57 p.107-136 (ES)
  70. Uría Gavalán, Elisa: Derechos fundamentales versus vigilancia masiva - Comentario a la setencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Gran Sala) de 6 de octubre de 2015 en el asunto C-362/14 Schrems, Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 2016 nº53 p.21-77 (ES)
  71. Alexandropoulou-Aigyptiadou, Evgenia: Diasynoriaki roi prosopikon dedomenon apo tin EE stis IPA: I prosfati apofasi tou DEE enopsei tis schetikis drastiriotitas tou Facebook (C-362/2014, M. Schrems kata Irlandou Epitropou Prostasias Prosopikon Dedomenon), Dikaio Meson Enimerosis & Epikoinonias 2016 p.12-24 (EL)
  72. Colonna, Liane: Schrems vs. Commissioner: A Precedent for the CJEU to Intervene in the National Intelligence Surveillance Activities of Member States?, Europarättslig tidskrift 2016 nº 2 p.208-224 (EN)
  73. Karwala, Damian: Krajobraz po wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie programu Bezpiecznej Przystani, Monitor Prawniczy 2016 Vol. 10 p.515-528 (PL)
  74. Mulligan, Andrea: Constitutional Aspects of International Data Transfer and Mass Surveillance, The Irish Jurist 2016 p.199-208 (EN)
  75. Kondargyris, Xenofondas: Armenopoulos 2016 p.326-329 (EL)
  76. Eichenhofer, Johannes: „e-Privacy“ im europäischen Grundrechtsschutz: Das „Schrems“-Urteil des EuGH, Europarecht 2016 Heft 1 p.76-89 (DE)
  77. Tracol, Xavier: “Invalidator” strikes back: The harbour has never been safe, Computer Law & Security Review (Ed. Elsevier - Edinburgh) 2016 p.345-362) (EN)
  78. Frenz, Walter: Terroristischer Angriff auf die Menschenwürde und Datenschutz, Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2016 Heft 1 p.1 (DE)
  79. Van Eijk, N.A.N.M.: Tijdschrift voor consumentenrecht en handelspraktijken 2016 p.197-199 (NL)
  80. Bifulco, Raffaele: La sentenza Schrems e la costruzione del diritto europeo della privacy, Giurisprudenza costituzionale 2016 p.289-307 (IT)
  81. Бончева, Катина: Safe harbour or pearl hearbour ?, Европейски правен преглед 2016 nº XIV p.144-153 (EN)
  82. Kuhn, Sascha: Safe-Harbor-Abkommen über den Transfer personenbezogener Daten in die USA unwirksam („Schrems“), Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2016 p.109-110 (DE)
  83. Dommering, E.J.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2016 Afl.45/46 p.5935-5938 (NL)
  84. Carotti, Bruno: Il caso Schrems, o del conflitto tra riservatezza e sorveglianza di massa, Giornale di diritto amministrativo 2016 p.333-344 (IT)
  85. Azoulai, Loïc ; van der Sluis, Marijn: Institutionalizing personal data protection in times of global institutional distrust: Schrems, Common Market Law Review 2016 p.1343–1371 (EN)
  86. Scarchillo, Gianluca: Dal Safe Harbor al Privacy Shield. Il trasferimento di dati personali verso gli Stati Uniti dopo la sentenza Schrems, Diritto del commercio internazionale 2016 p.901-941 (IT)
  87. Ojanen, Tuomas: Making the Essence of Fundamental Rights Real: The Court of Justice of the European Union Clarifies the Structure of Fundamental Rights under the Charter, European Constitutional Law Review 2016 Vol. 12 p.318-329 (EN)
  88. Epstein, Richard A.: The ECJ's Fanal Imbalance: Its cavalier treatment of national security issues poses serious risk to public safety and sound commercial practices, European Constitutional Law Review 2016 Vol. 12 p.330-340 (EN)
  89. Scheinin, Martin: Towards evidence-based discussion on surveillance: A Rejoinder to Richard A. Epstein, European Constitutional Law Review 2016 Vol. 12 p.341-348 (EN)
  90. Kajtazović, Sandra: Ščit zasebnosti - kako se razlikuje od Varnega pristana?, Pravna praksa 2016 nº 44 p.16-18 (SL)
  91. Börding, Andreas: Ein neues Datenschutzschild für Europa, Computer und Recht 2016 p.431-441 (DE)
  92. Pachinger, Michael M.: Nach dem EuGH-Urteil zu Safe Harbor - Was tun und wie geht's weiter?, Ecolex 2016 p.115-117 (DE)
  93. Nino, Michele: Le prospettive internazionali ed europee della tutela della privacy e dei dati personali dopo la decisione Schrems della Corte di giustizia UE, Il diritto dell'Unione Europea 2016 p.755-787 (IT)
  94. Jotzo, Florian: Europarecht - Unabhängigkeit der Datenschutzaufsicht und Safe-Harbor-Entscheidung der EU-Kommission, Juristenzeitung 2016 p.366-370 (DE)
  95. Metallinos, Nathalie: La libre circulation des données personnelles fondées sur l'adéquation après l'arrêt Schrems : la fin de l'innocence, Revue des affaires européennes 2016 p.265-272 (FR)
  96. Ojanen, Tuomas: Rights-Based Review of Electronic Surveillance after Digital Rights Ireland and Schrems in the European Union, Surveillance, Privacy and Transatlantic Relations (Ed. HartPublishing - Oxford) 2017 p.13-29 (EN)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

High Court - Ireland

Subject-matter

  • Approximation of laws
  • Data protection

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

von Danwitz

Advocate General

Bot

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French