Court of Appeal of Brussels - 2021/AR/1044: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:02, 2 August 2021

Hof van Beroep - 2021/AR/1044

Court:	Hof van Beroep Brussel (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 66 GDPR Article 78(1) GDPR Article 47 CFREU 108, § 1, par. 2 WOG
Decided:	16.07.2021
Published:	16.07.2021
Parties:	Belgian Federal Public Service Finance ADP/GBA
National Case Number/Name:	2021/AR/1044
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:	APD/GBA 66/2021
Appeal to:	Not appealed
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	Tussenarrest 16 juli 2021 (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor:	Matthias Smet

The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that because of the fact that FPS Finance did not put forward any concrete evidence, either in the application or at the hearing, to justify its claim for suspension and, , its application is unfounded.

English Summary

Facts

The Belgian FPS Finance appeals the provisionally enforceable aspect of its appealed decision of the Belgian DPA and asks for the immediate suspension of the implementing measures already taken until the Court has ruled on the merits of the case.

Dispute

Holding

Article 66 GDPR provides the possibility of an "urgency procedure" where a supervisory authority considers that there is an urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects. By way of derogation the supervisory authority can immediately adopt provisional measures intended to produce legal effects on its own territory with a specified period of validity which shall not exceed three months. Reading this article (together with article 60 and 62 of the GDPR), we can deduce that the European legislator did not intend to make decision of the litigation chamber of a DPA provisionally enforceable.

An appeal against an administrative decision can only be effective if the applicant is not put under pressure to pay a fine or to comply with the decisions of the contested decision immediately.

Article 108, § 1, par. 2 WOG must be interpreted strictly and in order to suspend the provisional enfocability of the measures, the applicant must prove and motivate that the application of Article 108, § 1, par. 2 WOG would infringe and violate the right to an effective remedy as set out in 47 CFREU.

In this case the court rules by interlocutory judgment that:

- The Belgian FPS Finance did not put forward any concrete evidence, either in the application or at the hearing, to justify its claim for suspension and, therefore, its application is unfounded;

- the Court prepares the case for hearing on the merits at on Wednesday 10 November 2021.

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.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 }}
-The Brussels Court of Appeal suspended by interlocutory judgment the provisional enforcability of the decision made by the Belgian DPA against the Belgian Federal Public Department of Finance.
+The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that because of the fact that FPS Finance did not put forward any concrete evidence, either in the application or at the hearing, to justify its claim for suspension and, , its application is unfounded.
 == English Summary ==
 === Facts ===
-The Belgian Federal Public Service of Finance appeals the provisionally enforceable aspect of its appealed decision of the Belgian DPA and asks for the immediate suspension of the implementing measures already taken until the Court has ruled on the merits of the case.
+The Belgian FPS Finance appeals the provisionally enforceable aspect of its appealed decision of the Belgian DPA and asks for the immediate suspension of the implementing measures already taken until the Court has ruled on the merits of the case.
 === Dispute ===
@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 In this case the court rules by interlocutory judgment that:
-- The Belgian Federal Public Department of Finance did not put forward any concrete evidence, either in the application or at the hearing, to justify its claim for suspension and, therefore, its application is unfounded;
+- The Belgian FPS Finance did not put forward any concrete evidence, either in the application or at the hearing, to justify its claim for suspension and, therefore, its application is unfounded;
-- the provisional enforcability of the decision 66/2021 must be suspended and any actions already taken must be reverted until the Court has ruled on the merits of the case;
 - the Court prepares the case for hearing on the merits at  on Wednesday 10 November 2021.