Edoardo Celeste, Sascha van Schendel

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 4 (2018), Issue 1, Page 135 - 139

Sascha van Schendel

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 4 (2018), Issue 3, Page 375 - 380

Sascha van Schendel

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 2 (2016), Issue 2, Page 254 - 257

Case C‑201/14 Smaranda Bara and Others [2015] For a public institution to be exempted on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC from complying with data subjects’ rights under the Directive, a legislative measure is required. A non-public protocol is not sufficient to qualify a legislative measure (author’s headnote). Articles 10, 11, and 13 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ 1995 L 281, 31.

Sascha van Schendel

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 1 (2015), Issue 2, Page 153 - 156

Case C/09/480009 / KG ZA 14/1575, Privacy First cs vs. the Dutch State, 11 March 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:2498 The summary proceedings judge of The Hague has declared the ‘Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens’ non-binding. This law obliges providers of telephone services and internet services to store traffic data and location data of the users. The law infringes the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The judge considers this infringement not be limited to what is strictly necessary (the official headnote translated by the author).