Skip to content
GDPR Art. 34 EN
LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this article. Contains: the article text, related recitals, cases citing it, enforcement stats and top fines, guidance, and related topics. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

Communication of a personal data breach to the data subject

In force — consolidated2016-05-04 · CELEX 02016R0679-20160504 · ELI ↗
Version history 2
  • 2016-05-04in force CELEX 02016R0679-20160504
  • 2016-04-27 CELEX 32016R0679
  1. 1.

    When the personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall communicate the personal data breach to the data subject without undue delay.

  2. 2.

    The communication to the data subject referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall describe in clear and plain language the nature of the personal data breach and contain at least the information and measures referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 33(3).

  3. 3.

    The communication to the data subject referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be required if any of the following conditions are met:

    1. a)
      the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational protection measures, and those measures were applied to the personal data affected by the personal data breach, in particular those that render the personal data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it, such as encryption;
    2. b)
      the controller has taken subsequent measures which ensure that the high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects referred to in paragraph 1 is no longer likely to materialise;
    3. c)
      it would involve disproportionate effort. In such a case, there shall instead be a public communication or similar measure whereby the data subjects are informed in an equally effective manner.
  4. 4.

    If the controller has not already communicated the personal data breach to the data subject, the supervisory authority, having considered the likelihood of the personal data breach resulting in a high risk, may require it to do so or may decide that any of the conditions referred to in paragraph 3 are met.

Enforcement

Cited in 62 fines totalling €83.5M

Top authority: 🇪🇺Polish National Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) (24) · median fine €28,850 · see all enforcement for Art. 34 →

Connections by provision

34(1) 33 Case Law 14 Guidance 1 Literature .md
Case Law 33
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 September 2025.#Zalando SE v European Commission.#Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Designation of a very large online platform – Plea of illegality – Article 33(1) and (4) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Legal certainty – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-348/23. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2024.#TR v Land Hessen.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 57(1)(a) and (f) – Tasks of the supervisory authority – Article 58(2) – Corrective powers – Administrative fine – Discretion of the supervisory authority – Limits.#Case C-768/21. BGH awards non-material GDPR damages for erroneous disclosure of applicant salary data Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2016.#Safe Interenvios, SA v Liberbank, SA and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Customer due diligence measures — Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services in the internal market.#Case C-235/14. Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.#Amazon EU Sàrl, venant aux droits de Amazon Services Europe Sàrl v European Commission.#Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Designation as a very large online platform – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Article 33(1) and (4) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Right to respect for private and family life – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to property – Equal treatment – Freedom of expression – Da ¶81 Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.#Amazon EU Sàrl, venant aux droits de Amazon Services Europe Sàrl v European Commission.#Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Designation as a very large online platform – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Article 33(1) and (4) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Right to respect for private and family life – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to property – Equal treatment – Freedom of expression – Da ¶10 Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 1999.#Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union.#Regulation (EC) nº 515/97 - Legal basis - Article 235 of the EC Treaty (now Article 308 EC) or Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC).#Case C-209/97. ¶137 Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.#Amazon EU Sàrl, venant aux droits de Amazon Services Europe Sàrl v European Commission.#Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Designation as a very large online platform – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Article 33(1) and (4) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Right to respect for private and family life – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to property – Equal treatment – Freedom of expression – Da +25 more
34(2) 4 Guidance .md
34(3) 7 Guidance .md
34(3)(c) 2 Guidance .md
34(4) 5 Guidance .md

Related across sources