The background to case C-456/22 (curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-456/22), which was decided on the same day, was that the agenda of a municipal council meeting, in which the names of the plaintiffs were mentioned several times, as well as a judgement pronounced by the Sigmaringen Administrative Court were published, in the rubric of which their surnames and first names as well as their address were also mentioned. These documents were available for several days on the homepage of this municipality.
As the Court has pointed out, it is clear from the wording of Article 82(1) of the GDPR that the existence of ‘damage’ which has been ‘suffered’ constitutes one of the conditions for the right to compensation laid down in that provision, as does the existence of an infringement of that regulation and of a causal link between that damage and that infringement, those three conditions being cumulative (judgments of 4 May 2023, Österreichische Post (Non-material damage in connection with the processing of personal data), C‑300/21, EU:C:2023:370, margin number 32, and of today, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite, C‑340/21, margin number 77). It follows that those three conditions are necessary and sufficient in order to have a right to compensation within the meaning of that provision, margin number 14.
It follows that Article 82(1) of the GDPR does not require that, following a proven infringement of provisions of that regulation, the ‘non-material damage’ alleged by the data subject must reach a ‘de minimis threshold’ in order for that damage to be capable of compensation, margin number 18.
On the other hand, the court also points out, that it cannot be considered that, in addition to the three conditions set out in paragraph 14 of the present judgment, other conditions for establishing liability laid down in Article 82(1) of the GDPR, such as the tangible nature of the damage or the objective nature of the infringement, may be added, margin number 17.