DATA PROTECTION
CJEU publishes judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages under the GDPR.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published its judgment in Case C-507/23 regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damages under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The CJEU outlined that the applicant is a journalist who is an expert in the automotive field. The applicant requested the Consumer Rights Protection Center of Latvia (PTAC) to remove a video campaign that featured a character imitating the applicant without their consent and compensation for reputational damage. The applicant brought an action before the District Administrative Court of Latvia which ordered PTAC to stop the video campaign and to pay compensation. On appeal to the Regional Administrative Court of Latvia, PTAC's actions were declared unlawful but the request for damages was dismissed as it held that the intention of the video campaign was to carry out a task in the public interest, not to harm the reputation of the applicant.
The Supreme Court of Latvia asked the CJEU to issue a preliminary ruling to clarify whether:
article 82(1) of the gdpr is to be interpreted as meaning that unlawful processing may in itself constitute an unjustified interference with the right to data protection and cause harm to that person;
article 82(1) of the gdpr allows for the order of an apology as a sole remedy for non-pecuniary damages; and
article 82(1) of the gdpr allows for circumstances revealing the intention and motivation of the controller to justify lesser compensation for the damage.
The CJEU found that:
a breach of the GDPR is not sufficient in itself to constitute 'damage' within the meaning of Article 82(1) of the GDPR, read in light of Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
the presentation of an apology may constitute adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in particular, where it is impossible to restore the situation to the state prior to the occurrence of that damage, provided that the form of compensation is capable of fully compensating for the harm suffered; and
Article 82(1) of the GDPR precludes the attitude and motivation of the controller from being taken into account whether to grant the data subject lesser compensation.
The CJEU outlined that the applicant is a journalist who is an expert in the automotive field. The applicant requested the Consumer Rights Protection Center of Latvia (PTAC) to remove a video campaign that featured a character imitating the applicant without their consent and compensation for reputational damage. The applicant brought an action before the District Administrative Court of Latvia which ordered PTAC to stop the video campaign and to pay compensation. On appeal to the Regional Administrative Court of Latvia, PTAC's actions were declared unlawful but the request for damages was dismissed as it held that the intention of the video campaign was to carry out a task in the public interest, not to harm the reputation of the applicant.
The Supreme Court of Latvia asked the CJEU to issue a preliminary ruling to clarify whether:
article 82(1) of the gdpr is to be interpreted as meaning that unlawful processing may in itself constitute an unjustified interference with the right to data protection and cause harm to that person;
article 82(1) of the gdpr allows for the order of an apology as a sole remedy for non-pecuniary damages; and
article 82(1) of the gdpr allows for circumstances revealing the intention and motivation of the controller to justify lesser compensation for the damage.
The CJEU found that:
a breach of the GDPR is not sufficient in itself to constitute 'damage' within the meaning of Article 82(1) of the GDPR, read in light of Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
the presentation of an apology may constitute adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in particular, where it is impossible to restore the situation to the state prior to the occurrence of that damage, provided that the form of compensation is capable of fully compensating for the harm suffered; and
Article 82(1) of the GDPR precludes the attitude and motivation of the controller from being taken into account whether to grant the data subject lesser compensation.
