the GDPR can at the same time fall under remedies laid down in the Civil Code. Data
subjects would in those cases have a choice as to whether they litigate under the
GDPR or the Civil Code (or both—see above).
However, neither the draft Czech Data Processing Act nor the Amending Act
contain any provisions regarding procedure for GDPR-based court cases. That
means there will arise substantial uncertainty as to whether such cases fall under
the general civil procedure, special civil procedure under Head V. of the Civil Code
(this procedure is for certain cases of judicial review of authoritative decisions) or
administrative court procedure (this procedure is generally used for judicial review
of administrative decisions).
In any case, the above implies that cross-border court claims made by data
subjects under the GDPR will be from jurisdictional perspective based on above
statutory dichotomy of Art. 79(2) that consists of place of establishment of the
controller or processor, and place of residence of the data subject. The same applies
also for damages or other remedies pursuant to Art. 82(6) of the GDPR.
Contrary to that, determination of forum and law applicable in cross-border court
cases for personality protection remedies under the Civil Code will be made pursuant
to Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 and subsequently according to Act No. 91/2012
Sb. (Act on Private International Law) where the key criterion is, besides the place of
establishment of the defendant, locus delicti and locus damni (the place of delict or
the place of damage). In that regards, there will mostly probably continue to apply
jurisdictional interpretations made in joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate
Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN limited. As to civil law
damages, there will probably apply, per analogiam, rules laid down in C-170/12
Peter Pinckney v. KDG Mediatech AG that give respective court of a member state
“jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which
it is situated”.
References
Chudomelová Z, Beran M, Jadrný V, Němečková Š, Novák J (2016) Zákon o elektronických
komunikacích: Komentář. Wolters Kluwer, Praha
Harašta J, Míšek J (2015) IP adresy v kybernetické bezpečnosti. Revue pro právo a technologie 6
(12):21–42
Hlaváčová K, Chorvát O (2016) Přístup orgánů činných v trestním řízení k datům uloženým v
cloudu. Revue pro právo a technologie 7(14):3–24
Kahle B, Vysokajov M, Hůrka P, Randlová N, Doležílek J (2015) Zákoník práce: Komentář.
5. Aktualizovanévydání. Wolters Kluwer, Praha
Maisner M (2016) Zákon o některých službách informační společnosti: Komentář. C.H. Beck,
Praha
Maisner M, Vlachová B (2015) Zákon o kybernetické bezpečnosti: Komentář. Wolters Kluwer,
Praha
National Report: Czech Republic
157
subjects would in those cases have a choice as to whether they litigate under the
GDPR or the Civil Code (or both—see above).
However, neither the draft Czech Data Processing Act nor the Amending Act
contain any provisions regarding procedure for GDPR-based court cases. That
means there will arise substantial uncertainty as to whether such cases fall under
the general civil procedure, special civil procedure under Head V. of the Civil Code
(this procedure is for certain cases of judicial review of authoritative decisions) or
administrative court procedure (this procedure is generally used for judicial review
of administrative decisions).
In any case, the above implies that cross-border court claims made by data
subjects under the GDPR will be from jurisdictional perspective based on above
statutory dichotomy of Art. 79(2) that consists of place of establishment of the
controller or processor, and place of residence of the data subject. The same applies
also for damages or other remedies pursuant to Art. 82(6) of the GDPR.
Contrary to that, determination of forum and law applicable in cross-border court
cases for personality protection remedies under the Civil Code will be made pursuant
to Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 and subsequently according to Act No. 91/2012
Sb. (Act on Private International Law) where the key criterion is, besides the place of
establishment of the defendant, locus delicti and locus damni (the place of delict or
the place of damage). In that regards, there will mostly probably continue to apply
jurisdictional interpretations made in joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate
Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN limited. As to civil law
damages, there will probably apply, per analogiam, rules laid down in C-170/12
Peter Pinckney v. KDG Mediatech AG that give respective court of a member state
“jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which
it is situated”.
References
Chudomelová Z, Beran M, Jadrný V, Němečková Š, Novák J (2016) Zákon o elektronických
komunikacích: Komentář. Wolters Kluwer, Praha
Harašta J, Míšek J (2015) IP adresy v kybernetické bezpečnosti. Revue pro právo a technologie 6
(12):21–42
Hlaváčová K, Chorvát O (2016) Přístup orgánů činných v trestním řízení k datům uloženým v
cloudu. Revue pro právo a technologie 7(14):3–24
Kahle B, Vysokajov M, Hůrka P, Randlová N, Doležílek J (2015) Zákoník práce: Komentář.
5. Aktualizovanévydání. Wolters Kluwer, Praha
Maisner M (2016) Zákon o některých službách informační společnosti: Komentář. C.H. Beck,
Praha
Maisner M, Vlachová B (2015) Zákon o kybernetické bezpečnosti: Komentář. Wolters Kluwer,
Praha
National Report: Czech Republic
157