I think the CJEU went against the prevailing opinion in academia, and even the views of the EDPB and others, in Meta Platforms and Lindenapotheke. If you take the CJEU seriously, a photo of a person with glasses is SCD. This just does not make sense in practice.

I disagree. IMHO there are special procedures that grant the court that power (e.g., action for annulment, Articles 263, 264, and 266 TFEU), and others that don´t.

As a general rule of law and democracy, any government body can exert only powers that are granted to it under the constitutional law. The decisive question is not whether the law *limits* the powers of a government body, it is whether the law *grants* that power to that body.

Article 267 TFEU means that the referring court asks a question, the CJEU answers. The CJEU does not have any executive powers under this procedure. Especially not against institutions who are not even a defendant int his procedure.

PS: I meant, not in case of a referral procedure under Article 267 TFEU.

The court IMHO does not have the power to declare decisions by the EU Commission as void.

I could continue the list much longer. But the bottom line is that the GDPR, as applied by the CJEU, is steamrolling over other interests that also require protection. Sometimes its the economy, sometimes it is the information society, this time it is the free internet.

4) Many decisions on non-material damages, where the court apparently missed the fact that Recital 85 is not a comment on Article 82. There is a reason why Recital 75 (which is the right one) does not refer to a 'loss of control' as damage.

3) The SCHUFA and Dunn&Bradstreet decisions, where the court applies an extremely wide interpretation of 'automated decision making', which now causes tons of problem in the e-commerce sector

2) Lindenapotheke where the court took an extremely wide view on what constitutes special categories data - apparently oblivious to the fact what this means for the scope of Article 9

But I think that the CJEU has also considerably increased the problems. There are numerous decisions where I think the court took an unnecessarily one-sided decision. Examples are:
1) The Schrems judgments where the court IMHO went ultra vires by declaring EU Commission decisions void

I agree that the written text of the GDPR is often part of the problem, because it often fails to acknowledge that data protection is an interest that always is in tension with other interests, and always requires compromises and a fair balance.

Danke :)

Tatsächlich hatte ich sogar mit meinem eigenen Team bei #2birds einen gewonnen, für mich war es also der zweite.