Describe the problem/error/question
Question and Answer Language Chain seems to be ignoring context.
Sometimes it uses the context provided in responses, sometimes it hallucinates.
How can I force it to use the context provided?
What is the error message (if any)?
None
Please share your workflow
Share the output returned by the last node
[
{
"messages":
[
"System: Use the following pieces of context to answer the users question. \nIf you don't know the answer, just say that you don't know, don't try to make up an answer.\n----------------\nJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)1 October 2019 (*)(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Directive 2002/58/EC — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector — Cookies — Concept of consent of the data subject — Declaration of consent by means of a pre-ticked checkbox)In Case C‑673/17,REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), made by decision of 5 October 2017, received at the Court on 30 November 2017, in the proceedingsBundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eVvPlanet49 GmbH,THE COURT (Grand Chamber),composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, J.-C. Bonichot, M. Vilaras, T. von Danwitz, C. Toader, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe and C. Lycourgos, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), L. Bay Larsen, M. Safjan and S. Rodin,\n\n## file location\n/Volumes/Ludicrous/PrivacyLaw_AI/Europe/EU/CJEU/2002_58_EC/Judgements/C-673_17.txt\n## file created\n2024-10-09T14:20:47.212+02:00\n## file contents\n\n2002/58.76 In that regard, it should be made clear that Article 10 of Directive 95/46, to which Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58 and Article 13 of Regulation 2016/679 refer, lists the information with which the controller must provide a data subject from whom data relating to himself are collected.77 That information includes, inter alia, under Article 10 of Directive 95/46, in addition to the identity of the controller and the purposes of the processing for which the data are intended, any further information such as the recipients or categories of recipients of the data in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are processed, to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject.78 Although the duration of the processing of the data is not included as part of that information, it is, however, clear from the words ‘at least’ in Article 10 of Directive 95/46 that that information is not listed exhaustively.\n\nwith the following further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing:(a) the period for which the personal data will be stored, or, where that is not possible, the criteria used to determine that period;…’16 Article 94 of that regulation provides:‘1. Directive [95/46] is repealed with effect from 25 May 2018.2. References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Regulation. References to the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data established by Article 29 of Directive [95/46] shall be construed as references to the European Data Protection Board established by this Regulation.’ German law17 According to the first sentence of Paragraph 307(1) of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code; ‘the BGB’), ‘provisions in standard business terms are ineffective if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, they unreasonably disadvantage the other party to the contract with the user’.18\n\nJudges,Advocate General: M. Szpunar,Registrar: D. Dittert, Head of Unit,having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 November 2018,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:– the Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV, by P. Wassermann, Rechtsanwalt,– Planet49 GmbH, by M. Jaschinski, J. Viniol and T. Petersen, Rechtsanwälte,– the German Government, by J. Möller, acting as Agent,– the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and F. De Luca, avvocato dello Stato,– the Portuguese Government, by L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, L. Medeiros and C. Guerra, acting as Agents,– the European Commission, by G. Braun, H. Kranenborg and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 March 2019,gives the followingJudgment1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(f) and of Article\n\nto rectify the data concerning him or her,in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are collected, to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject.’ Directive 2002/587 Recitals 17 and 24 of Directive 2002/58 state:‘(17) For the purposes of this Directive, consent of a user or subscriber, regardless of whether the latter is a natural or a legal person, should have the same meaning as the data subject’s consent as defined and further specified in Directive [95/46]. Consent may be given by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the user’s wishes, including by ticking a box when visiting an internet website.…(24) Terminal equipment of users of electronic communications networks and any information stored on such equipment are part of the private sphere of the users requiring protection under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and\n\n5(3) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11) (‘Directive 2002/58’), read in conjunction with Article 2(h) 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), and of Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 (General Data Protection Regulation)\n\nrequirements of Paragraph 307 of the BGB, read in conjunction with Paragraph 7(2)(2) of the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Law against Unfair Competition) of 3 July 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, p. 1414), in the version in force at the material time in the main proceedings, and Paragraph 12 et seq. of the TMG.33 The Federation brought an action before the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) for an injunction, in substance, requiring Planet49 to cease using such declarations and to pay it EUR 214 plus interest from 15 March 2014.34 The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) upheld the action in part.35 Following an appeal on points of fact and law brought by Planet49 before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), that court held that the Federation’s plea for an injunction ordering Planet49 to refrain from including the statement set out in paragraph 27 above, the\n\nuser’s terminal equipment is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which the user must deselect to refuse his or her consent.2. Article 2(f) and Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46 and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation 2016/679, are not to be interpreted differently according to whether or not the information stored or accessed on a website user’s terminal equipment is personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679.3. Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as meaning that the information that the service provider must give to a website user includes the duration of the operation of cookies and whether or not third parties may have access to those cookies.[Signatures]* Language of the case: German.\n\nArticle 94(2) of Regulation 2016/679, the references to Directive 95/46 in Directive 2002/58 are to be construed as references to that regulation, it is not inconceivable, in the present case, that Directive 2002/58 applies both to Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679, according to the nature of the Federation’s pleas and the relevant time.43 The questions referred must therefore be answered having regard to both Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679. Question 1(a) and (c)44 By Question 1(a) and (c), the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(f) and Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46 and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation 2016/679, must be interpreted as meaning that the consent referred to in those provisions is validly constituted if, in the form of cookies, the storage of information or access to information already stored in a website user’s terminal equipment is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which\nHuman: summarise c-673/17 please"
],
"estimatedTokens":
2243,
"options":
{
"lc":
1,
"type":
"not_implemented",
"id":
[
"langchain",
"chat_models",
"ollama",
"ChatOllama"
]
}
}
]
Information on your n8n setup
- n8n version: 1.61.0
- Database (default: SQLite): SQLite
- n8n EXECUTIONS_PROCESS setting (default: own, main):
- Running n8n via (Docker, npm, n8n cloud, desktop app): npm
- Operating system: MacOS Sequoia
