Airteagal 79 RGCS (GDPR). An ceart chun leigheas breithiúnach éifeachtach a fháil i gcoinne rialaitheoir nó próiseálaí
Article 79 GDPR. Right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor
1. Gan dochar d’aon leigheas riaracháin nó neamhbhreithiúnach atá ar fáil, lena n-áirítear an ceart gearán a thaisceadh le húdarás maoirseachta de bhun Airteagal 77, beidh an ceart chun leigheas breithiúnach éifeachtach a fháil ag gach ábhar sonraí i gcás ina measann sé nó sí gur sáraíodh a gcearta faoin Rialachán seo mar thoradh ar phróiseáil a shonraí paearsanta nóa sonraí pearsanta i nemahchomhlíonadh an Rialachain seo.
1. Without prejudice to any available administrative or non-judicial remedy, including the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 77, each data subject shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy where he or she considers that his or her rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of his or her personal data in non-compliance with this Regulation.
1. Gan dochar d’aon leigheas riaracháin nó breithiúnach eile, beidh sé de cheart ag gach ábhar sonraí gearán a thaisceadh le húdarás maoirseachta, go háirithe sa Bhallstát ina bhfuil gnáthchónaí air nó uirthi, ina (h)áit oibre nó áit an tsáraithe a líomhnaítear, má mheasann an t-ábhar sonraí go sáraíonn an phróiseáil a dhéantar ar shonraí pearsanta a bhaineann leis nó léi an Rialachán seo.
1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement if the data subject considers that the processing of personal data relating to him or her infringes this Regulation.
2. Cuirfidh an t-údarás maoirseachta ar taisceadh an gearán leis an gearánach ar an eolas maidir le dul chun cinn agus toradh an ghearáin, lena n-áirítear an fhéidearthacht leigheas breithiúnach a fháil de bhun Airteagal 78.
2. The supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall inform the complainant on the progress and the outcome of the complaint including the possibility of a judicial remedy pursuant to Article 78.
2. Tionscnófar imeachtaí i gcoinne rialaitheoir nó próiseálaí os comhair na gcúirteanna sa Bhallstát ina bhfuil bunaíocht ag an rialaitheoir nó ag an bpróiseálaí. De rogha air sin, féadfar na himeachtaí sin a thionscnamh os comhair na gcúirteanna sa Bhallstát ina bhfuil gnáthchónaí ar an ábhar sonraí, ach amháin más údarás poiblí de chuid Ballstáit é an rialaitheoir nó an próiseálaí atá ag gníomhú i bhfeidhmiú a chumhachtaí poiblí.
2. Proceedings against a controller or a processor shall be brought before the courts of the Member State where the controller or processor has an establishment. Alternatively, such proceedings may be brought before the courts of the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence, unless the controller or processor is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers.
The threshold for “stable arrangement ” can actually be quite low when the centre of activities of a controller concerns the provision of services online. As a result, in some circumstances, the presence of one single employee or agent of a non-EU entity in the Union may be sufficient to constitute a stable arrangement (amounting to an ‘establishment’ for the purposes of Art 3(1)) if that employee or agent acts with a sufficient degree of stability. Conversely, when an employee is based in the EU but the processing is not being carried out in the context of the activities of the EU-based employee in the Union (i.e. the processing relates to activities of the controller outside the EU), the mere presence of an employee in the EU will not result in that processing falling within the scope of the GDPR. In other words, the mere presence of an employee in the EU is not as such sufficient to trigger the application of the GDPR, since for the processing in question to fall within the scope of the GDPR, it must also be carried out in the context of the activities of the EU-based employee.
 Weltimmo, paragraph 31.
The fact that the non-EU entity responsible for the data processing does not have a branch or subsidiary in a Member State does not preclude it from having an establishment there within the meaning of EU data protection law. Although the notion of establishment is broad, it is not without limits. It is not possible to conclude that the non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union .
 CJEU, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Amazon EU Sarl, Case C‑191/15, 28 July 2016, paragraph 76 (hereafter “Verein für Konsumenteninformation”).
An Rialachán Ginearálta maidir le Cosaint Sonraí (RGCS, GDPR)
General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR)
The latest consolidated version of the Regulation with corrections by Corrigendum, OJ L 127, 23.5.2018, p. 2 ((EU) 2016/679). Source: EUR-lex.
(145) Maidir le himeachtaí i gcoinne rialaitheora nó próiseálaí, ba cheart rogha a bheith ag an ngearánaí caingean a thabhairt os comhair na gcúirteanna sna Ballstáit ina bhfuil bunaíocht ag an rialaitheoir nó ag an bpróiseálaí nó sa Bhallstát ina bhfuil cónaí ar an ábhar sonraí, ach amháin más údarás poiblí de chuid Ballstáit atá ag gníomhú i bhfeidhmiú a chumhachtaí poiblí é an rialaitheoir.
(145) For proceedings against a controller or processor, the plaintiff should have the choice to bring the action before the courts of the Member States where the controller or processor has an establishment or where the data subject resides, unless the controller is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers.