GDPR. Article 82. Damages

In the landmark judgment of the Austrian Post Case by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), a nuanced approach to the concepts of tangible damage, the calculation of damages, and the minimum threshold for harm under Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was established. This decision set a precedent that significantly impacts the interpretation of GDPR across the European Union, particularly emphasizing the importance of these three aspects in data protection law cases.

Tangible Damage and Its Implications: The CJEU clarified that for a claim under Article 82 of the GDPR to be valid, the claimant must demonstrate that tangible damage has occurred as a result of a GDPR infringement. This establishes that mere infringement of GDPR provisions is not sufficient for compensation claims; there must be a direct causal link between the infringement and the actual damage suffered by the individual. This approach ensures that claims are substantiated by actual harm, enhancing the integrity and seriousness of GDPR enforcement.

Calculation of Damages: The ruling further elucidates that while calculating damages, national courts are not bound by prescriptive rules under the GDPR. Instead, they are to apply domestic laws relating to financial compensation, guided by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness inherent in EU law. This flexibility allows member states to tailor the calculation of damages to their legal systems while adhering to the overarching objectives of the GDPR. The Court's stance emphasizes the balance between adhering to EU-wide standards and respecting national legal traditions in assessing damages.

Minimum Threshold for Harm: Significantly, the CJEU declared that member state laws should not impose a de minimis threshold of harm for claims under Article 82. This ensures that even minor non-material damages, which might not meet a significant harm criterion, are recognized and compensated. The Court's rejection of a minimum harm threshold underlines the GDPR's intention to protect individuals' data rights comprehensively, without trivializing any level of harm that breaches GDPR provisions.

This decision emanates from the Austrian Post Case, which revolved around non-consensual data processing, including sensitive political affiliation information. The case was closely watched, particularly because of its implications for a related Irish case (Cunniam v Parcel Connect Limited trading as Fastway Couriers Ireland and Others), which was stayed pending this CJEU decision.

The CJEU's judgment reflects a broader EU legislative trend towards strengthening data protection enforcement and compliance. It aligns with recent legislative efforts, such as the Digital Markets Act, aiming to streamline and bolster the effectiveness of regulatory actions within the digital and data protection domains.

Conclusion: The Austrian Post Case marks a pivotal moment in GDPR jurisprudence, setting forth crucial principles for the treatment of tangible damage, the calculation of damages, and the consideration of harm's minimum threshold. It ensures that GDPR claims are grounded in real harm, provides flexibility in damage assessment, and eliminates barriers to claiming compensation for non-material damages. This decision is poised to guide the adjudication of GDPR-related cases across the EU, fostering a more harmonized and effective approach to data protection law enforcement.

Case reference.