The APPLIED project seeks to address the growing challenge of enforcing data protection rights across different European jurisdictions. Central to this project is the comparative legal analysis, which focuses on six selected jurisdictions: the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, and France. These countries were chosen not just for their diverse legal traditions, but also for their varying experiences with collective actions, especially in data protection. This diversity allows us to explore how different legal frameworks and practices impact the enforcement of data rights.

The laws governing collective actions are complex, shaped by a mix of European harmonized rules, national implementations, and additional non-harmonized legislation. To navigate this, our study begins with an overview of the main European instruments in play—namely, the requirements for legal representation under Article 80 of the GDPR and the available collective redress mechanisms in light of the Representative Action Directive. From there, we delve into how collective litigation is configured across these six Member States:

Although expanding the study to include other jurisdictions would be valuable, we have limited our focus due to practical constraints of time and resources. The selection of these particular countries is strategic, reflecting not only the researchers’ access to first-hand resources but also the need to capture a variety of legal cultures, approaches to data protection and collective redress, and stages of implementing the RAD. Importantly, these countries offer distinct litigation environments, each presenting unique challenges and opportunities for collective enforcement.

Earlier drafts of these reports have laid the groundwork for the interviews with key stakeholders. It is important to note that these reports do not yet include the findings from these interviews.

In our analysis, we acknowledge that the level of detail available about relevant cases varies across jurisdictions, leading to some differences in how legal proceedings are presented. These variations reflect the specificity and accessibility of data in each country’s legal system.

Similar versions of the Dutch and Italian reports have been produced for the Digital Freedom Fund. The authors have participated in the DFF digiRISE project, funded by the European Union CERV action.

This remains work in progress, as the research is ongoing. We welcome any feedback or insights that could contribute to refining.