–

Facebook Ireland Ltd, by P. Gallagher and N. Hyland, Senior Counsel, A. Mulligan and
F. Kieran, Barristers-at-Law, and P. Nolan, C. Monaghan, C. O’Neill and R. Woulfe, Solicitors,

–

Mr Schrems, by H. Hofmann, Rechtsanwalt, E. McCullough, J. Doherty and S. O’Sullivan,
Senior Counsel, and G. Rudden, Solicitor,

–

the United States of America, by E. Barrington, Senior Counsel, S. Kingston, Barrister-at-Law,
S. Barton and B. Walsh, Solicitors,

–

the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, by S. Lucey, Solicitor, G. Gilmore and A. Butler,
Barristers-at-Law, and C. O’Dwyer, Senior Counsel,

–

BSA Business Software Alliance Inc., by B. Van Vooren and K. Van Quathem, advocaten,

–

Digitaleurope, by N. Cahill, Barrister, J. Cahir, Solicitor, and M. Cush, Senior Counsel,

–

Ireland, by A. Joyce and M. Browne, acting as Agents, and D. Fennelly, Barrister-at-Law,

–

the Belgian Government, by J.‑C. Halleux and P. Cottin, acting as Agents,

–

the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, O. Serdula and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents,

–

the German Government, by J. Möller, D. Klebs and T. Henze, acting as Agents,

–

the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agent,

–

the Netherlands Government, by C.S. Schillemans, M.K. Bulterman and M. Noort, acting as
Agents,

–

the Austrian Government, by J. Schmoll and G. Kunnert, acting as Agents,

–

the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,

–

the Portuguese Government, by L. Inez Fernandes, A. Pimenta and C. Vieira Guerra, acting as
Agents,

–

the United Kingdom Government, by S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC, and
C. Knight, Barrister,

–

the European Parliament, by M.J. Martínez Iglesias and A. Caiola, acting as Agents,

–

the European Commission, by D. Nardi, H. Krämer and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents,

–

the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), by A. Jelinek and K. Behn, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 19 December 2019,
gives the following
Judgment
1

This reference for a preliminary ruling, in essence, concerns:
–

the interpretation of the first indent of Article 3(2), Articles 25 and 26 and Article 28(3) of
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement
of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU and of Articles 7, 8 and
47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);

Select target paragraph3