Case Law · CJEU ·458/25 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 document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

CJEU · C-458/25

The Advocate General opined that Article 83(7) GDPR precludes exempting a private-law entity providing publicly subsidised education from administrative fines merely because it performs a public-interest task.

CJEU
Personal Data Consent Fines Retention Period Data Minimization Controllers Supervisory Authorities GDPR Article 5 Principles of Processing
Sep 21, 2026 C-458/25 Source gdprhub.eu

How it connects

Related across sources

Guidelines 5/2019 criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1) Guidelines Jul 7, 2020 Right to be Forgotten Personal Data Administrative Fines on Union Institutions, Bodies, Offices and Agencies
Guidelines 05/2020 consent under Regulation 2016/679 Guidelines on consent Guidelines May 4, 2020 Consent Personal Data Audit Logs
Guidelines 07/2020 concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR Guidelines Jul 7, 2021 Controllers Processors Joint Controllers
Guidelines 10/2020 restrictions under Article 23 GDPR Guidelines Oct 13, 2021 GDPR Subject-Matter and Objectives Personal Data Data Portability
2025 Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) Guidelines on transparency Transparency Personal Data Information Provision Modalities and Communication Methods
Guidelines 1/2020 processing personal data in the context of connected vehicles and mobility related applications Guidelines on processing of personal data through video devices Guidelines 2020 Personal Data Privacy by Design & Default Processing

Full text

The Advocate General opined that Article 83(7) GDPR precludes exempting a private-law entity providing publicly subsidised education from administrative fines merely because it performs a public-interest task. English Summary. Facts. In July 2019, the father of a pupil filed a complaint with the Dutch DPA, against Onderwijsgroep Zusters der Christelijke Scholen Zuid-Kempen VZW (OZCS), the controller, a non-profit organisation operating a subsidised independent educational establishment. The complaint concerned a survey on pupils' well-being which was distributed to pupils through a digital platform. According to the complaint, the controller had not informed the parents beforehand, had not obtained their consent, had collected more personal data than necessary and had failed to comply with its obligations regarding the processing of the pupils' personal data. On 16 June 2020, the DPA found that the controller infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, Article 8 GDPR, the data minimisation

Related documents