GDPR5 Nov 2026Art. 4(7), Art. 4(21), Art. 15, Art. 23(1), Art. 77
Automatically summarised from the primary source — not yet editorially verified. Read the primary source ↗
Detected caselaw relating to GDPR: “Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 November 2026. — Joachim Lindenberg v Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht. — Reference for a preliminary ruling – Harmonisation of laws – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Data contained in the file of a supervisory authority involved in a complaint procedure – Article 4(7) and (21) – Concepts of ‘controller’ and ‘supervisory authority’ – Article 15 – Right of access by the data subject – Article 23 – Restrictions – Article 77 – Right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority – National legislation prohibiting all access to files or records of the supervisory authority. — Case C-205/25.”. Summarised automatically from the primary source; open the source link for the authoritative text.
What to do: No action for AI systems follows from this ruling. It interprets the GDPR: a supervisory authority handling a complaint under Article 77 is a controller and must in principle give the complainant access under Article 15, and national law may not exclude that access altogether (Article 23(1)). Note it if you lodge or handle data-protection complaints.
Legal status: Case law · Jurisdiction: EU
Official source: CJEU ↗