APD/GBA (Belgium) - 26/2021

APD/GBA - 26/2021
Authority:	APD/GBA (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 6 GDPR
Type:	Other
Outcome:	n/a
Started:
Decided:	23.03.2021
Published:	23.03.2021
Fine:	None
Parties:	IAB Europe
National Case Number/Name:	26/2021
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	n/a
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	Tussenbeslissing 26/2021 van 23 februari 2021 (in NL)
Initial Contributor:	Enzo

The Belgian DPA (APD/GBA) changes the language of the procedure against IAB to Dutch after its interlocutory decision 01/2021 (setting French as the procedural language) was appealed in front of the Court of Markets. The parties can still speak or write in Dutch, French and English.

English Summary

Facts

The decision of APD/GBA - 01/2021 has been appealed by several parties, a hearing was held in front of the Court of Markets.

Dispute

What language should the Belgian DPA use in a cross-border procedure concerning complaints by data subjects in different Member States?

Holding

Pursuant to the agreement reached between the parties, as upheld by the Court of Markets in its ruling 2020/1351 of February 17, 2021, this interlocutory order, amends interlocutory order No. 01/2021 of January 8, 2021 in which it was decided that the proceedings would be held in French.

The DPA changes the language of its proceedings and communication to Dutch (from French). A translation of the decision will be provided in French and English to the parties. The parties are free to chose their own language between Dutch, French and English. The DPA will not be responsible for the translation of the documents provided by the parties.

On the 4th of February, an inspection report (of 13th July, 2020) was provided to the parties in French (cleanses of English wording) which replaces the previous version. IAB Europe will bind itself to not the report on the basis of the language laws. A Dutch translation was provided on the 11th of February.

The identity of the parties is not withheld based on the earlier publicity of this case.

Comment

This decision is linked to a previous decision from the APD/GBA, who had held that the procedural language would be French: APD/GBA - 01/2021

The final decision has been issued by the Belgian DPA: APD/GBA (Belgium) - 21/2022

Further Resources

Share your comments 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.

                                                                                              1/4








                                                                          Dispute Chamber




                                        Interim decision 26/2021 of 23 February 2021





File no. : DOS-2019-01377



Subject: Language of the procedure - complaint against IAB Europe



The Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority, consisting of Mr Hielke Hijmans,

Chairman, and Messrs. Yves Poullet and Christophe Boeraeve, members, will take these in that composition

case in progress;



Having regard to 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 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter “GDPR”);



In view of the law of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority (hereinafter

GBA law);



Having regard to the rules of internal procedure, as approved by the Chamber of

Representatives of the people on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 15

January 2019;



In view of the appeal of Johnny Ryan, Pierre Dewitte, Jeff Ausloos, the NGO Panoptykon, the NGO Bits

of Freedom, as well as The League for Human Rights at the Marktenhof have filed against the

Interim decision of the Disputes Chamber no.01 / 2021 of 08 January 2021,



Having regard to the hearing before the Marktenhof on February 3, 2021,



In view of the judgment of the Marktenhof of 17 February 2021. Decision 26/2021 - 2/4



                                   1
has taken the following decision regarding:



    - the complainants:

             - Mr. Johnny Ryan

             - Mr Pierre Dewitte

             - Mr. Jeff Ausloos

             - Mr Bruno Bidon

             - NGO Panoptykon

             - NGO Bits of Freedom

             - La Ligue des Droits de l'Homme




    - the defendant: IAB Europe





    1. Justification

                                                                2
1. Pursuant to the agreement concluded between the parties, as ratified by the Marktenhof

    in its judgment 2020/1351 of 17 February 2021, this interim decision amends the interim decision

    No. 01/2021 of January 8, 2021 as follows.


2. The GBA changes the language of the case from French to Dutch. This means that the correspondence

    of the GBA will from now on be conducted in Dutch with the parties and that in the future

    provisional and final decisions of the Disputes Chamber will be in Dutch. The

    However, the Disputes Chamber will provide a French and an English translation of the final decision to the

    provide parties.


3. On 4 February 2021, the DPA also provided the parties with the inspection report of 13 July 2020

    decision in French, sanitized from English wording. There are no substantive

    made changes to the report. This new French version of the inspection report

    replaces the previous version ex tunc. This implies that IAB Europe commits itself to nullity

    of the Inspectorate's report on the basis of the language legislation.


4. The GBA also provides the parties with an authentic version of the inspection report in Dutch

    language provided on 11 February 2021.


5. However, the parties are free to choose their language in the proceedings before the Dispute Chamber


    choice (Dutch, French or English), both written and oral. In the case

    from IAB Europe it is French or English. Furthermore, the Data Protection Authority is not




1 This is the Dutch original version
2
 Agreement of 5 February 2021 between the parties through the conclusions before the Markentehof. Decision 26/2021 - 3/4



    responsible for translations of procedural documents submitted by a party on behalf of the

    other party.


6. Each party will bear its own costs of the appeal proceedings.


7. Considering the importance of transparency with regard to the decision-making process and the

    decisions of the Disputes Chamber, as well as on the specific nature and public interest

    of this decision, it will be published on the website of the

    Data protection authority. In view of the previous publicity on this case, the

    Litigation chamber decided the direct identification of the parties and the cited

    persons, natural or legal persons.


8. The aforementioned agreement between the parties is attached to this decision and on the website

    of the Data Protection Authority.





FOR THESE REASONS


THE DISPUTE CHAMBER





Decides, after deliberation, to amend Interim Decision No. 01/2021 of 8 January 2021 as follows:


- to conduct the proceedings in Dutch, on the understanding that the parties themselves, both in their

    be able to express conclusions as at the hearing in French, Dutch or English;



- not to provide translations of written documents that are in one of these three languages

    submitted;



- to take the final decision in Dutch, and simultaneously a French and an English version

    to the parties, which will also be made available on the GBA website

    posed. Decision 26/2021 - 4/4




This interim decision can be appealed within 30 days of its notification

registered with the Marktenhof (article 108, § 1, of the law of 3 December 2017 establishing

the Data Protection Authority) with the Data Protection Authority as the defendant.





(get.) Hielke Hijmans


Chairman of the Disputes Chamber