Mere­ly vio­la­ting the Gene­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Regu­la­ti­on (GDPR / GSGVO) is not suf­fi­ci­ent to estab­lish a claim for non-material dama­ge com­pen­sa­ti­on under Artic­le 82(1) of the GDPR. Accor­ding to the ECJ (EuGHs), there must be an actu­al harm suf­fe­r­ed by the affec­ted indi­vi­du­al, and there must be a cau­sal con­nec­tion bet­ween the unlawful pro­ces­sing of data and the harm. Non-material dama­ge com­pen­sa­ti­on does not depend on the ext­ent of the harm rea­ching a cer­tain thres­hold of signi­fi­can­ce. Howe­ver, an affec­ted indi­vi­du­al must demons­tra­te that the GDPR vio­la­ti­on had nega­ti­ve con­se­quen­ces for them, and that these con­se­quen­ces con­sti­tu­te non-material dama­ge as defi­ned by Artic­le 82(1) of the GDPR. Deter­mi­ning when non-material dama­ge exists remains the respon­si­bi­li­ty of natio­nal courts.