Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020CN0701

Case C-701/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 December 2020 — Avis Autovermietung Gesellschaft mbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

OJ C 98, 22.3.2021, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.3.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/7


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 December 2020 — Avis Autovermietung Gesellschaft mbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-701/20)

(2021/C 98/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Avis Autovermietung Gesellschaft mbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Question referred

Do the rules in Chapter VIII, in particular in Article 80(1) and (2) and Article 84(1), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (1) (‘the GDPR’), preclude national rules which — alongside the powers of intervention of the supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the regulation and the options for legal redress for data subjects — empower, on the one hand, competitors and, on the other, associations, entities and chambers entitled under national law, to bring proceedings for breaches of the GDPR, independently of the infringement of specific rights of individual data subjects and without being mandated to do so by a data subject, against the infringer before the civil courts on the basis of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices or breach of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions?


(1)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.


Top