CIPP/E Notable Court Cases

Reviewed by Editorial Team

The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.

Learn about Our Editorial Process

| By Randy

Randy

Community Contributor

Quizzes Created: 2 | Total Attempts: 406

| Attempts: 112

Questions

Feedback

During the Quiz End of Quiz

Difficulty

Easy First Hard First Sequential

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Whatsapp Share on Pinterest Share on Email Copy to Clipboard Embed on your website

1/7 Questions

Which court case ruled on the right to be forgotten that search engines must remove links and results for name, address, and links/results by third parties that contain information related to that person?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson

About This Quiz

This quiz titled 'CIPP\/E notable court cases' assesses knowledge on landmark European data privacy court rulings. It covers cases like Google Spain and Schrems, focusing on rights, data transfer, and privacy directives. Essential for learners in data protection and legal compliance.

2.

Which court case invalidated safe harbor was adequate in transfers to the US?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson
Correct Answer

A. Schrems

Explanation

Schrems is the correct answer because the court case known as Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner invalidated the Safe Harbor framework, which was a legal mechanism used to transfer personal data from the European Union to the United States. The case was brought by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, who argued that the Safe Harbor framework did not adequately protect the privacy rights of European citizens. The European Court of Justice agreed with Schrems and declared the Safe Harbor framework invalid in 2015, leading to the development of a new framework called the EU-US Privacy Shield.

Rate this question:

1
3.

Which court case ruled that the data retention directive invalid based on articles 7, 8, and 11?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson
Correct Answer

A. Digital Rights Ireland

Explanation

The correct answer is Digital Rights Ireland. The Digital Rights Ireland case ruled that the data retention directive was invalid based on articles 7, 8, and 11.

Rate this question:

1
4.

Which court case ruled that a CCTV recording the public does not fall under the household exemption?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson
Correct Answer

A. Rynes

Explanation

The court case that ruled that a CCTV recording the public does not fall under the household exemption is Rynes.

Rate this question:

1
5.

Which court case ruled that personal data may not be transferred between public administrative bodies without individuals being informed?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson
Correct Answer

A. ANAF

Explanation

ANAF is the correct answer because it refers to the Romanian National Agency for Fiscal Administration. In 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled in the ANAF case that personal data cannot be transferred between public administrative bodies without individuals being informed. This decision reinforced the importance of transparency and informed consent in data transfers, ensuring that individuals have control over their personal information.

Rate this question:

1
6.

Which court case ruled that indiscriminate retention of data even for fighting crime is incompatible with eprivacy directive?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson
Correct Answer

A. Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson

Explanation

The court case Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson ruled that indiscriminate retention of data, even for fighting crime, is incompatible with the eprivacy directive.

Rate this question:

1
7.

Which court case ruled that data protection laws apply in cross border situations. Minimal activities in a member state can trigger application of member states’ data protection law?
- Google Spain
- Digital Rights Ireland
- ANAF
- Weltimmo
- Schrems
- Rynes
- Tele2 Sverige and Tom Watson
Correct Answer

A. Weltimmo

Explanation

Weltimmo is the correct answer because the court case ruled that data protection laws apply in cross border situations. It established that even minimal activities in a member state can trigger the application of member states' data protection law.

Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

Current Version
Mar 21, 2023

Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team
Apr 29, 2020

Quiz Created by
Randy

CIPP/E Notable Court Cases

Which court case ruled on the right to be forgotten that search engines must remove links and results for name, address, and links/results by third parties that contain information related to that person?

Quiz Preview

Which court case invalidated safe harbor was adequate in transfers to the US?

Which court case ruled that the data retention directive invalid based on articles 7, 8, and 11?

Which court case ruled that a CCTV recording the public does not fall under the household exemption?

Which court case ruled that personal data may not be transferred between public administrative bodies without individuals being informed?

Which court case ruled that indiscriminate retention of data even for fighting crime is incompatible with eprivacy directive?

Which court case ruled that data protection laws apply in cross border situations. Minimal activities in a member state can trigger application of member states’ data protection law?