- 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-40/25, CRIF: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 23 January 2025 – CRIF GmbH v YO
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0040
62025CN0040
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/1880
7.4.2025
(Case C-40/25, CRIF)
(C/2025/1880)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant and original defendant party: CRIF GmbH
Respondent and original applicant: YO
Question referred
Must Article 17 of the GDPR (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) be interpreted as meaning that a data subject whose personal data have been unlawfully disclosed by the controller through onward transfer has the right to obtain a prohibitory injunction against the controller prohibiting further unlawful onward transfer of those data if the data subject does not request the controller to erase the data because the data subject cannot then be found in the controller’s database, which may make it difficult or even impossible to conclude a contract if the controller’s customers make their business decisions dependent on a successful search for the data subject in the controller’s database?
—
(1) 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) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1880/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—