Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

Every law, versioned and linked. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
UI v Österreichische Post AG (C-300/21)
Consideration of the questions referred
Substance
Question 1
42

UI v Österreichische Post AG (C-300/21)

Judgment of 4 May 2023law://eu/cjeu/2021/c-300-21/para_42@2026-11-10

42In the light of all of the foregoing reasons, the answer to Question 1 is that Article 82(1) of the GDPR must be interpreted as meaning that the mere infringement of the provisions of that regulation is not sufficient to confer a right to compensation.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-300/21 · ECLI:EU:C:2023:370
Decided: 4 May 2023
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria)
Applicant: UI
Defendant: Österreichische Post AG
Rapporteur: N. Jääskinen
Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona
Bench: 5 judges
K. Jürimäe, M. Safjan, N. Piçarra, N. Jääskinen, M. Gavalec
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62021CJ0300

Topics

Principles of Union law Protection of personal data

History · 1 version

4 May 2023Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)3 provisions
Cited by 15: VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C-340/21); ZQ v Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung Nordrhein, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (C-667/21); BL v MediaMarktSaturn Hagen-Iserlohn GmbH (C-687/21)2 provisions; VX and AT v Gemeinde Ummendorf (C-456/22)2 provisions; GP v juris GmbH (C-741/21); Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos v Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija (C-683/21); AT and BT v PS GbR and Others (C-590/22)3 provisions; Agentsia po vpisvaniyata v OL (C-200/23)2 provisions; JU and SO v Scalable Capital GmbH (C-182/22)2 provisions; MK v K GmbH (C-65/23)2 provisions; A v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (C-507/23)3 provisions; IP v Quirin Privatbank AG (C-655/23); Brillen Rottler GmbH & Co. KG v TC (C-526/24); Thomas Bindl v European Commission (T-354/22); EA v Artemis security SAS (C-367/23)
Cites 15: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)2 provisions; Proceedings brought by B (C-439/19); Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems (C-311/18); A.H. v Zagrebačka banka d.d (C-567/20); RW v Österreichische Post AG (C-154/21); Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, Antonio Cannito v Fondiaria Sai SpA and Nicolò Tricarico and Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA (C-295/04); UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG and VF (C-595/20); VI v KRONE – Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG (C-65/20); Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Beck Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH, in liquidation (C-355/97); Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman (C-415/93); The North of England P & I Association Ltd v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-786/19); Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych (C-403/16); International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado and Correos (C-162/06); Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU (C-18/21); UAB „Sanresa“ v Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos (C-295/20)