Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2370

28.4.2025

(Case C-206/25 P)

(C/2025/2370)

Language of the case: German

Parties to proceedings

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, B. Hofstötter and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Thomas Bindl

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

—annul the judgment of the General Court of 8 January 2025 in Case T-354/22 Bindl v Commission, EU:T:2025:4, in so far as it grants the appellant’s claim for damages;

—give final judgment on the action at first instance in Case T-354/22 and dismiss the action;

—order the applicant at first instance, now the respondent, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission relies on five grounds of appeal:

First, the Commission submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the rules on the burden of proof as regards the pre-requisites for an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (EU-GDPR), (1) to be demonstrated by the applicant. In any event, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 46 EU-GDPR by using an incorrect test in determining whether the applicant’s personal data were transferred to a third country.

Second, the Commission complains that the General Court erred in law in finding that, by displaying a hyperlink on a website, the Commission created the pre-requisites for the appellant’s IP address to be transferred to the United States, to which Article 46 EU-GDPR applies. In addition, the General Court erred in law in finding that, in the absence of an adequacy decision within the meaning of Article 47 EU-GDPR, a transfer of personal data to a third country is possible only if the controller provides appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 48(1) EU-GDPR.

Third, the Commission submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the requirement for a direct causal link in Articles 65 EU-GDPR and Article 340 TFEU. In any event, the General Court misapplied the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof in relation to that requirement.

Fourth, the Commission complains that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the ‘non-material damage’ requirement in Article 65 of the EU-GDPR and the ‘damage’ requirement in Article 340 TFEU. In any event, the General Court misapplied the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof in relation to that requirement.

In the fifth and last place, the Commission submits that, in paragraphs 197 and 198 of the judgment under appeal, there is no adequate and sufficient statement of reasons for the requirements in Article 65 of the EU-GDPR and Article 340 TFEU.

(1) 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 1247/2002/EC (PE/31/2018/REV/1) (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2370/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—