The study addresses the issue of the personal data portability, in the perimeter of the exercising of the data subject's right of access to personal data collected and processing by personal data controllers, as outlined in the text of art. 15 of Regulation no. 679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The exercise of the right of personal data portability does not imply merely insular effects, since it consequentially engages archipelago effects, as it is at the forefront of the effective exercise of other essential rights of the data subject, in the light of the GDPR and Directive 2019/770 provisions, implicitly conditioning, to a considerable extent, the exercise of the right of access to personal data, the right to rectification of personal data and the right to oppose the processing of personal data. The subject's control exercised over the personal data processing concerning the active participation of the data subject in updating his / her preferences in terms of consenting to personal data processing, including the decision to port the personal data to another controller, find their normative expression in the binomen represented by the data subject's right of access and the right of data portability. Data portability requires the implementing of pertinent technical standards, in terms of adequacy and appropriateness of mechanism aimed at the facilitating of the transfer from one data controller to another, such as the ability to export user data into a user-accessible local file, thus promoting interoperability, as well as facilitating searchability and data subject's effective control over data processing.

The study discusses the problematics of the granularity and specificity of the data subject's consent, in the light of the principle of 'purpose limitation' when collecting and processing personal data while distinguishing between the imperatives deriving from the principle of purpose limitations (i) form those arising from the incidence of the principle of storage limitations (ii). These issues remain highly important in litigious hypotheses of processing personal data of customers collected and stored unlawfully, including in terms of post-verification of the processing purposes. Secondly, the study focuses on the limits of the purpose limitation principle, set out in Article 5 para. ( 1), (b) of the GDPR, including bifurcated components: personal data must, on the one hand, be collected for determined, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and, on the other hand, not to be further processed in a manner which becomes incompatible with the initial collecting purposes. We argue that the mentioned principle aims to delimit as clearly as possible the use of personal data by ensuring a balance between respect for the fundamental rights of data subjects in terms of privacy and data protection and the recognition of certain flexibility in favor of the operator in the management of such data, as imposed by digitalization and its inherent risks. In its second component, which is of particular interest to us in the present study, the purpose limitation principle seeks to define the extent to which personal data collected for a particular purpose may be reused by companies, since any processing after collection must be considered as 'further processing' and must therefore meet, with certain exceptions, the purpose-compatibility requirements.

Articolul examinează problematica procesării datelor cu caracter personal din categoria datelor sensibile indirecte din declarațiile privind conflictele de interese private, astfel cum a fost abordată această problematică în decizia C.J.U.E. pronunțată în 01 aug. 2022 în cauza C-184/20; decizia comentată a vizat interpretarea prevederilor art. 9, alin. (1) din Regulamentul General 2016/679 privind publicarea, pe pagina de internet a autorității publice responsabile cu colectarea și verificarea conținutului declarațiilor de interese private, a datelor cu caracter personal care pot dezvălui indirect orientarea sexuală a unei persoane fizice și care, prin urmare, constituie prelucrare a unor categorii speciale de date cu caracter personal. Cazul a vizat legislația națională dintr-un stat-membru, care prevede publicarea online a declarației de interese private conform căreia o persoană care accesează fonduri publice este obligată să depună date specifice, nominale referitoare la soțul, concubinul sau partenerul său de viață sori la persoanele care sunt rude apropiate ale declarantului, cu care este angajat în relații susceptibile să dea naștere unui conflict de interese.

Comentariul abordează problematica rolului jucat de percepția „consumatorului mediu” în înregimentarea unui produs într-una din categoriile produselor farmaceutice, prin prisma direcțiilor interpretative reținute de CJUE în textul deciziilor pronunțate în cauzele conexate C‑495/21, C‑496/21 și în cauza C-616/20, pentru ipotezele în care principala manieră de acțiune a unui produs cu eficacitate terapeutică potențială nu este constatată științific, nefiind acreditată în baza cercetărilor derulate de către producător. Pornind de la constatarea că, în plan conceptual, respectivul produs nu corespunde nici definiției noțiunii de „dispozitiv medical” în sensul dispozițiilor Directivei 93/42, astfel cum a fost modificată prin Directiva 2007/47, nici celei de „medicament după criteriul funcției”, în sensul prevederilor Directivei 2001/83, astfel cum a fost modificată prin Directiva 2004/27, iar definiția noțiunii de „medicament după criteriul prezentării”, în accepțiune reținută în textul Directivei 2001/83, astfel cum a fost modificată prin Directiva 2004/27 implică raportarea la criteriul percepției subiective generate consumatorilor, asupra funcțiilor terapeutice ale produsului, CJUE a reținut că elementele evocate de instanța de trimitere, precum alegerile operate de producător cu privire la „prezentarea produsului în cauză ca având proprietăți curative sau de natură să atenueze” manifestări patologice, „referirile la interacțiunile medicamentoase și la reacțiile adverse, precum și o distribuire exclusiv în farmacii reprezintă elemente care, considerate în ansamblu, sunt susceptibile să indice produsele în cauză, în percepția unui consumator mediu avizat, ca având proprietățile unui medicament”.

The paper focuses on the reverberations of the concept of ‘place of performance of the contractual obligations’ on the establishing of court’s jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, under the provisions of second indent of Article 7, para. (1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, in the perimeter of air transportation. The first part of the article deals with the preliminary points that should be stated concerning the judicial action which falls within the concept of ‘matters relating to main contractual provisions’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012, in the hypotheses which cover the claims brought by air passengers for compensation for the long delay of a connecting flight, made under Regulation No 261/2004, against an operating air carrier with which the passenger concerned does not have a contractual nexus. As emphasised in the second part of the paper, particularly in the field of contracts concluded for the provision of services (air transport), as reflected in CJEU recent jurisprudence (Case C-20/21), in the case of flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several flight segments by two separate air carriers, under the provisions of art. 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, the claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first flight segment falls under the territorial competence of the court from the place of arrival of that first flight. Thirdly, the reverberations of the place of contractual performance on determining the courts’ jurisdiction become ostensible since the place of arrival for that first flight segment may not be classified as a ‘place of contractual performance’ within the meaning of the legal provisions.