ECJ confirms: GDPR violation does not automatically trigger a claim for non-material damages
In its decision of June 14, 2024 (Case No.: C-300/21), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarified that a mere violation of the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not automatically give rise to a claim for damages. Rather, affected individuals must have actually suffered material or non-material damage and must also present and prove this in the event of a dispute. The ruling provides companies and data-processing entities with legally binding guidance in dealing with data protection liability risks and significantly influences the case law of national courts in connection with data protection violations.
Background to the preliminary ruling procedure
The case originated in Austria. A plaintiff claimed non-material damages from an online platform operator for alleged violations of the GDPR. He relied solely on the claim that his personal data had allegedly been processed unlawfully, without specifying any resulting concrete disadvantage—such as experienced discomfort or impairment. The Regional Court of Vienna, which was in charge of the case, referred several questions to the ECJ regarding the interpretation of Art. 82 GDPR and in particular requested clarification as to whether the mere infringement of data protection provisions is sufficient to establish a claim for damages.
Legal assessment by the ECJ
Requirements for a claim for damages under Art. 82 GDPR
The ECJ stated that the GDPR provides for a nuanced regulation for the compensation of damages. Art. 82 GDPR indeed establishes liability in the event of violations of data protection provisions, but necessarily requires three prerequisites for a compensation claim:
- a violation of the GDPR,
- damage resulting therefrom, and
- a causal link between the violation and the damage.
The Court thus emphasizes that not every deviation from the GDPR requirements immediately gives rise to liability. A claim for compensation requires that an actual material or non-material disadvantage has indeed occurred.
No automatism in favor of the affected person
With this decision, the ECJ rejects a strict ‘no fault liability.’ The mere determination of a data protection violation—such as a not properly declared consent or a missed information obligation—is not sufficient for the reimbursement of monetary amounts for non-material damages. Rather, affected individuals must specifically demonstrate how they have actually and individually suffered damage as a result of the violation. This regularly requires a detailed description of the impairment suffered, such as the occurrence of anxiety, stress, or impacts on the social environment, and not just abstract or general disadvantages.
No threshold of severity for non-material damage
The ECJ also clarifies that there should be no threshold required as to the existence of damage, according to which only ‘serious’ non-material damages are eligible for compensation. Even minor impairments may thus give rise to a claim, provided they were actually caused by the GDPR violation and can be substantiated in the proceedings. However, the requirements for proving non-material damage remain in place.
Impact on national and international legal practice
Strengthening the principle of individual responsibility
The ECJ decision makes it clear that companies and data-processing entities must continue to meet high requirements in the field of data protection. At the same time, the judgment provides legal certainty and prevents unlimited extension of liability risks in cases of purely technical or formal disregard for the GDPR, as long as no concrete damage is demonstrated.
In practical terms, this means that mere mistakes in handling personal data—such as providing information or documentation—do not automatically lead to financial claims by affected individuals. Only when concrete, individual disadvantages are shown and proven does a claim for compensation arise.
Significance for companies and data protection officers
In light of the recent ECJ decision, it is recommended to pay increased attention to the documentation of data processing activities and potential risks. The ruling does not lower the requirements for data-processing entities in terms of prevention, sensitivity, and documentation obligations—but does provide greater clarity regarding the requirements for a possible compensation claim.
Conclusion and outlook
The ECJ’s case law represents an important milestone in the interplay between data protection and liability law. It ensures a necessary distinction between mere legal violations and actual causation of damage. In this way, both the position of affected individuals and the interests of companies and data-processing entities are brought into a balanced equilibrium. The ECJ’s ruling is likely to be landmark for current case law and the future design of compensation law in the context of data protection.
For further questions or if you have legal uncertainties in the context of data protection law, the Rechtsanwälte at MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte are happy to assist you as your contact partners.
