header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 October 2015
Issue: 7672 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner C-362/14, [2015] All ER (D) 34 (Oct)

The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, on the proper construction of Art 25(6) of Council Directive (EC) 95/46, Commission Decision (EC) 2000/520, which found that the US ensured an adequate level of data protection, was invalid.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: AI wake-up call for law firms
A High Court ruling has sent a jolt through the legal profession after a newly qualified solicitor used an internal AI tool to produce court correspondence containing a fabricated legal citation
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal redraws the consent boundary
A significant data privacy ruling has clarified what counts as valid consent under UK data protection law
NLJ this week: Hidden shareholdings could unlock probate windfalls
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
NLJ this week: Botox boom leaves legal protections lagging behind
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
NLJ this week: Court battles grow over family visits in care settings
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll