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
—
(2023/C 296/26)
Language of the case: English
Appellant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: D. Nardi, T. Zerdick, P. Candellier, X. Lareo, G. Devin, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal;
—give a final judgment in the dispute;
—order the SRB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.
In support of the appeal, the Appellant raises the following two grounds:
First ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 3(1) and 3(6) of Regulation 2018/1725 (1) as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice for having required the EDPS to assess whether the information at stake in the case was personal data taking the perspective of the recipient and by omitting to give consideration to the notion of pseudonymisation.
Second ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 4(2) and 26(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 by omitting to give any consideration to the principle of accountability and having found that the EDPS should have proven that the SRB had effectively anonymised the personal data it was processing.
*
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018, L 295, p. 39).
—