Photo of Aleksander Aleksiev

Aleksander Aleksiev

Aleksander advises clients on legal problems associated with data protection, cybersecurity, and new technologies. He holds degrees in both law and computer engineering which he combines to provide advice that is both legally sound and technologically pragmatic.

Aleksander has advised companies, governments, and charitable organizations on a range of technology law issues including data breach response, compliance with privacy and cybersecurity laws, and IT contract negotiations. In addition to his experience advising on European law, Aleksander is Australian-qualified and has significant experience advising clients in the Asia-Pacific – particularly on Australian and Hong Kong law.

In six months’ time, on 17 October 2024, Member State laws that transpose the EU’s revised Network and Information Systems Directive (“NIS2”) will start to apply.  As described in more detail in our earlier blog post (here), NIS2 significantly expands the categories of organizations that fall within scope of EU cybersecurity legislation. This new, cross-sector law imposes additional and more granular security and incident reporting rules, enhanced governance requirements that apply to organizations’ “management bodies,” and creates a stricter enforcement regime.Continue Reading NIS2 implementation enters the final stretch – six months to deadline

In recent months, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) issued five judgments providing some clarity on the scope of individuals’ rights to claim compensation for “material and non-material damage” under Article 82 of the GDPR. These rulings will inform companies’ exposure to compensation claims, particularly in the context of the EU’s Collective Redress Directive, but open questions remain about the quantum of compensation courts will offer in these cases and we expect both the CJEU and national courts to deliver additional case-law clarifying this topic in the coming year (for more information on recent CJEU cases related to compensation, see our previous blog posts here and here).

  • In VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C-340/21), the CJEU concluded that individuals may have suffered “non-material damage”—and therefore be able to claim compensation—if they can demonstrate that they feared future misuse of personal data that was compromised in a personal data breach.  
  • In VX v Gemeinde Ummendorf (C-456/22), the CJEU found that there is no de minimis threshold for damage, below which individuals cannot claim for compensation.
  • In BL v MediaMarktSaturn (C-687-21), the CJEU restated its existing case-law, and expanded upon its analysis in VB by clarifying that alleged harms cannot be “purely hypothetical”.
  • In Kočner v Europol (C-755/21), the CJEU awarded non-material damages of €2000 for the publication in newspapers of transcripts of “intimate” text messages.
  • In GP v Juris GmbH (C-741/21), the CJEU found that where one processing activity infringes multiple provisions of the GDPR, this should not allow claimants to “double-count” the harm they suffered.

We provide further detail on each case below.Continue Reading Rounding up Five Recent CJEU Cases on GDPR Compensation

On November 27, 2023, the Council of the EU formally adopted the Data Act, following the European Parliament’s endorsement of November 9, which concludes the EU legislative process.  As noted below, the Data Act will shortly be published in the Official Journal and become enforceable in 2025.

The Data Act is designed to require entities to make data, including non-personal data, accessible to other parties, so that it can be re-used for new purposes.  The Data Act’s obligations are broad  and may require significant engineering work to re-design products to ensure compliance.  

We provide below a brief overview of key takeaways and timelines.Continue Reading Data Act Becomes Law: What Next?

Earlier this year, the UK’s privacy and competition regulators (the ICO and CMA) issued a joint paper setting out their concerns and expectations in the field of dark patterns – techniques designed to mislead or deceive users of online services – which the regulators refer to as “harmful online choice architectures”. As we’ve previously noted, dark patterns are an area of increasing focus of regulators, and the joint paper reflects the growing interplay between privacy and competition laws – a trend we expect to see continue in 2024.Continue Reading UK Regulators Target Dark Patterns

The recently agreed Cyber Resilience Act isn’t the only new EU cybersecurity rule set to be published this December: by the end of the year, the European Commission is expected to adopt its draft regulations to establish a European cybersecurity certification scheme (“ECCS”). Continue Reading EU cyber regulation wave quietly rolls on – Commission set to finalize new cyber standards

Yesterday, the European Commission, Council and Parliament announced that they had reached an agreement on the text of the Cyber Resilience Act (“CRA”). As a result, the CRA now looks set to finish its journey through the EU legislative process early next year. As we explained in our prior post about the Commission proposal, the CRA will introduce new cybersecurity obligations for a range of digital products sold in Europe. We’ll provide a more detailed summary of the agreed text once it is finalized and published but in this post we set out a brief summary of key provisions. In terms of timing, the CRA will come into force over a phased transition period starting in late 2025.
Continue Reading The EU’s Cyber Resilience Act Has Now Been Agreed

EU advocate general Collins has reiterated that individuals’ right to claim compensation for harm caused by GDPR breaches requires proof of “actual damage suffered” as a result of the breach, and “clear and precise evidence” of such damage – mere hypothetical harms or discomfort are insufficient. The advocate general also found that unauthorised access to data does not amount to “identity theft” as that term is used in the GDPR.Continue Reading EU Advocate General Defines “Identity Theft” And Reaffirms GDPR Compensation Threshold

On October 26, 2023, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) decided that the GDPR grants a patient the right to obtain a copy of his or her medical record free of charge (case C-307/22, FT v DW).   As a result, the CJEU held that a provision under German law that permitted doctors to ask their patients to pay for the costs associated with providing access to their medical record is contrary to EU law.Continue Reading CJEU Holds That GDPR Right of Access Overrules Local Laws

A would-be technical development could have potentially significant consequences for cloud service providers established outside the EU. The proposed EU Cybersecurity Certification Scheme for Cloud Services (EUCS)—which has been developed by the EU cybersecurity agency ENISA over the past two years and is expected to be adopted by the European Commission as an implementing act in Q1 2024—would, if adopted in its current form, establish certain requirements that could:

  1. exclude non-EU cloud providers from providing certain (“high” level) services to European companies, and
  2. preclude EU cloud customers from accessing the services of these non-EU providers.

Continue Reading Implications of the EU Cybersecurity Scheme for Cloud Services

On August 22, 2023, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved the Statute of the Spanish Agency for the Supervision of Artificial Intelligence (“AESIA”) thus creating the first AI regulatory body in the EU. The AESIA will start operating from December 2023, in anticipation of the upcoming EU AI Act (for a summary of the AI Act, see our EMEA Tech Regulation Toolkit). In line with its National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Spain has been playing an active role in the development of AI initiatives, including a pilot for the EU’s first AI Regulatory Sandbox and guidelines on AI transparency.
Continue Reading Spain Creates AI Regulator to Enforce the AI Act