Behör­de: EuGH 
ECJ (Cases C‑37/20 and C‑601/20): Trans­pa­ren­cy pro­vi­si­ons regar­ding BO in the 5th Money Laun­de­ring Direc­ti­ve par­ti­al­ly ineffective
ECJ (Austri­an Post): Right to infor­ma­ti­on inclu­des, if pos­si­ble, the indi­vi­du­al reci­pi­en­ts (not only categories)
ECJ, Case C‑579/21 – Appli­ca­ti­ons GA: Employees are not “reci­pi­en­ts”
ECJ i.S. Pro­xi­mus (Case C‑129/21, 27.10.22): Infor­ma­ti­on requi­re­ments in case of dele­ti­on in a pro­ce­s­sing chain
Cases. C‑252/21, BKar­tA vs. Meta: Opi­ni­on of the GA; Cogni­ti­on of the BKar­tA; Noti­on of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data; Making public.
ECJ, Case C‑300/21 i.S. Öster­rei­chi­sche Post: GA moti­ons: dama­ges under GDPR 82 pre­sup­po­se harm.
ECJ C‑184/20: Pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data also in case of pos­si­ble infe­ren­ces on sen­si­ti­ve information
EDSA publishes gui­de­lines for data trans­fers under Schrems II
FDPIC on the Schrems II ruling
1 2 3 4 5 6