EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-265/24: Action brought on 21 May 2024 – Microsoft Ireland Operations v EDPS

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0265

62024TN0265

May 21, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

C series

C/2024/3926

(Case T-265/24)

(C/2024/3926)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Bourgeois and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 8 March 2024 adopted following the investigation into use of Microsoft 365 by the European Commission (Case 2021-0518) (“Contested Decision”);

in the alternative, annul point 592.1 of the Contested Decision; and

order the EDPS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging errors in law and in fact in finding infringements of the EUDPR purpose limitation provisions (Articles 4(1)(b), 4(3), 6, 9, 26(1), 29(3)(a) and 30 EUDPR).

2.Second plea in law, alleging errors in law and in fact in finding infringements of the EUDPR provisions relating to international transfers (Articles 4(2), 29(3)(a), 46, 47 and 48(1), 48(3)(a)).

3.Third plea in law, alleging errors in law and in fact in finding infringements of EUDPR provisions on Unauthorised Disclosures (Articles 4(1)(f), 29(3)(a), 33(1) and (2), 36, 49).

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that EDPS has erred in law by imposing disproportionate corrective measures based on unfounded presumptions of EUDPR infringements, and before completing steps required to verify its presumptions and to assess the impact of its proposed corrective measures.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia