- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-34/21, Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium v Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 88(1) and (2) — Processing of data in the employment context — Regional school system — Teaching by videoconference as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic — Implementation without the express consent of the teachers)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0034
62021CA0034
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
22.5.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 179/2
(Case C-34/21, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 88(1) and (2) - Processing of data in the employment context - Regional school system - Teaching by videoconference as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic - Implementation without the express consent of the teachers)
(2023/C 179/02)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium
Defendant: Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 88 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation cannot constitute a ‘more specific rule’, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, where it does not satisfy the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of that article.
2.Article 88(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/679
must be interpreted as meaning that the application of national provisions adopted to ensure the protection of employees’ rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of their personal data in the employment context must be disregarded where those provisions do not comply with the conditions and limits laid down in Article 88(1) and (2), unless those provisions constitute a legal basis referred to in Article 6(3) of that regulation, which complies with the requirements laid down by that regulation.
*
Language of the case: German
ECLI:EU:C:2023:140