Court of Appeal of Brussels - 2020/AR/329: Difference between revisions
NautaDutilh (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Court-BG-Color= | |Court-BG-Color= | ||
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png | |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png | ||
|Court_Abbrevation= | |Court_Abbrevation=Hof van Beroep | ||
|Court_With_Country= | |Court_With_Country=Hof van Beroep Brussel (Belgium) | ||
|Case_Number_Name=2020/AR/329 | |Case_Number_Name=2020/AR/329 | ||
|ECLI= | |ECLI= | ||
|Original_Source_Name_1= | |Original_Source_Name_1=GBA | ||
|Original_Source_Link_1=https:// | |Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/publications/arret-intermediaire-du-02-septembre-2020-de-la-cour-des-marches-disponible-en-neerlandais.pdf | ||
|Original_Source_Language_1=Dutch | |Original_Source_Language_1=Dutch | ||
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=NL | |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=NL | ||
|Date_Decided=02.09.2020 | |Date_Decided=02.09.2020 | ||
|Date_Published= | |Date_Published= | ||
|Year=2020 | |Year=2020 | ||
|GDPR_Article_1=Article 57( | |GDPR_Article_1=Article 57(1)(f) GDPR | ||
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 57 GDPR# | |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 57 GDPR#1f | ||
|GDPR_Article_2=Article 77 GDPR | |GDPR_Article_2=Article 77(2) GDPR | ||
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 77 GDPR | |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 77 GDPR#2 | ||
|National_Law_Name_1=Article 95, §1, 3° WOG | |||
|National_Law_Link_1=http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/wet/2017/12/03/2017031916/justel | |||
|Party_Name_1= | |Party_Name_1=GBA | ||
|Party_Link_1= | |Party_Link_1=https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/ | ||
|Party_Name_2= | |Party_Name_2= | ||
|Party_Link_2= | |Party_Link_2= | ||
| Line 37: | Line 39: | ||
|Party_Link_5= | |Party_Link_5= | ||
|Appeal_From_Body= | |Appeal_From_Body=GBA | ||
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name= | |Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=DOS 2019-06201 | ||
|Appeal_From_Status= | |Appeal_From_Status= | ||
|Appeal_From_Link= | |Appeal_From_Link= | ||
|Appeal_To_Body= | |Appeal_To_Body= | ||
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name= | |Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name= | ||
|Appeal_To_Status= | |Appeal_To_Status=Unknown | ||
|Appeal_To_Link= | |Appeal_To_Link= | ||
| Line 50: | Line 52: | ||
}} | }} | ||
A supervisory authority is authorized to dismiss a complaint when it considers that an examination on substantive merits is not appropriate. But when the supervisory authority takes such a decision, it must motivate it formally and substantively. | |||
== English Summary == | |||
== | === Facts === | ||
After ceasing her notary activity, the applicant engaged in a liquidation dispute with her former business partner and their accounting office. | |||
This dispute arose as the accounting office (1) failed to fulfill several ethical obligations and (2) transferred files containing personal data about the applicant to the former partner (without the applicant’s consent). | |||
The Litigation Chamber of the Data Protection Authority declared X’s complaint admissible, but dismissed it for the following opportunity reasons: | |||
- the complaint did not contain any grievances that a have a “broad social impact”; | |||
- another complaint was pending with the competent authority with regard to the ethical and professional mistakes ; | |||
- taking into account the resources available, it should make choices regarding the type of files it will follow up on grants. | |||
The applicant subsequently appealed to the Market Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal against the aforementioned dismissal decision. | |||
=== | === Dispute === | ||
Should Article 57.1, f) GDPR be read as such that supervisory authorities may not dismiss complaints for policy reasons, but should instead review the full substance of the allegations in each complaint? | |||
In other words, does the data subjects' right to lodge a complaint under Article 77 GDPR equal the right to claim a full substantive investigation and a full substantive assessment by the supervisory authority? | |||
=== Holding === | |||
Article 57 GDPR provides that the supervisory authority must "examine the content of the complaint" only "to the extent that is appropriate". There is therefore no absolute obligation but a discretionary power for the supervisory authority to make a full substantive investigation and a full substantive assessment of the complaint. | |||
If the supervisory authority considers that a treatment of the case on substantive merits is not appropriate (due to policy considerations, for example), it is authorized to dismiss the complaint. The option to dismiss is indeed one of the consequences that can be given to a complaint in accordance with Article 95 §1, 3° WOG. | |||
In | But when the supervisory authority decides to dismiss a complaint, it must motivate this decision formally and substantively. In this case, the Market Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal considered that the decision of the Litigation Chamber of the DPA was not properly motivated as it didn't explain "why" there was no "broad social impact", neither how and to what extent the deontological complaint lodged with the competent authority had the same object as the complaint to the DPA. The motive establishing that there are insufficient financial resources as the disposal of the DPA was not judged conclusive neither as it was not supported by any data (''[the DPA] is at the service of the citizen and must ensure that it spends its resources properly"; "the citizens should not and should not be the victims"). | ||
A decision based on incorrect or legally unacceptable motives reveals an overstep of power and is therefore voidable. | |||
== Comment == | |||
==Comment== | |||
''Share your comments here!'' | ''Share your comments here!'' | ||
==Further Resources== | == Further Resources == | ||
''Share blogs or news articles here!'' | ''Share blogs or news articles here!'' | ||
==English Machine Translation of the Decision== | == English Machine Translation of the Decision == | ||
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details. | The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details. | ||
Revision as of 15:35, 28 October 2020
| Hof van Beroep - 2020/AR/329 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Hof van Beroep Brussel (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 57(1)(f) GDPR Article 77(2) GDPR Article 95, §1, 3° WOG |
| Decided: | 02.09.2020 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | GBA |
| National Case Number/Name: | 2020/AR/329 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | GBA DOS 2019-06201 |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | GBA (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
A supervisory authority is authorized to dismiss a complaint when it considers that an examination on substantive merits is not appropriate. But when the supervisory authority takes such a decision, it must motivate it formally and substantively.
English Summary
Facts
After ceasing her notary activity, the applicant engaged in a liquidation dispute with her former business partner and their accounting office. This dispute arose as the accounting office (1) failed to fulfill several ethical obligations and (2) transferred files containing personal data about the applicant to the former partner (without the applicant’s consent). The Litigation Chamber of the Data Protection Authority declared X’s complaint admissible, but dismissed it for the following opportunity reasons: - the complaint did not contain any grievances that a have a “broad social impact”; - another complaint was pending with the competent authority with regard to the ethical and professional mistakes ; - taking into account the resources available, it should make choices regarding the type of files it will follow up on grants. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Market Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal against the aforementioned dismissal decision.
Dispute
Should Article 57.1, f) GDPR be read as such that supervisory authorities may not dismiss complaints for policy reasons, but should instead review the full substance of the allegations in each complaint? In other words, does the data subjects' right to lodge a complaint under Article 77 GDPR equal the right to claim a full substantive investigation and a full substantive assessment by the supervisory authority?
Holding
Article 57 GDPR provides that the supervisory authority must "examine the content of the complaint" only "to the extent that is appropriate". There is therefore no absolute obligation but a discretionary power for the supervisory authority to make a full substantive investigation and a full substantive assessment of the complaint.
If the supervisory authority considers that a treatment of the case on substantive merits is not appropriate (due to policy considerations, for example), it is authorized to dismiss the complaint. The option to dismiss is indeed one of the consequences that can be given to a complaint in accordance with Article 95 §1, 3° WOG.
But when the supervisory authority decides to dismiss a complaint, it must motivate this decision formally and substantively. In this case, the Market Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal considered that the decision of the Litigation Chamber of the DPA was not properly motivated as it didn't explain "why" there was no "broad social impact", neither how and to what extent the deontological complaint lodged with the competent authority had the same object as the complaint to the DPA. The motive establishing that there are insufficient financial resources as the disposal of the DPA was not judged conclusive neither as it was not supported by any data ([the DPA] is at the service of the citizen and must ensure that it spends its resources properly"; "the citizens should not and should not be the victims").
A decision based on incorrect or legally unacceptable motives reveals an overstep of power and is therefore voidable.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
