Council of State - 253.677: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:57, 8 June 2022

Coouncil of State - 253.677

Court:	Coouncil of State (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 9 GDPR Article 28 GDPR Article 46 GDPR
Decided:	06.05.2022
Published:	01.06.2022
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	253.677
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	French
Original Source:	Council of State (in French)
Initial Contributor:	n/a

The Council of State suspended a decision to choose a US contractor in the context of a public procurement procedure on the ground that the public authority did not sufficiently examine whether the contractor was compliant with the requirements of the GDPR, in particular the provisions on transfers and the further processing by another company, Smart Analytics, based in Russia.

English Summary

Facts

VIVALIA, a public network of hopsitals, started a public tender to find a contractor to process patient data of hospitals for statistical purposes. The contract was assigned to 3M, a US company that was already in the news for transferring data to the US and Russia without appropriate safeguards. On this basis, a third party, which also took part in the public procurement procedure, challenged VIVALIA's decision.

Holding

The Council of State considered that, before concluding the public tender, VIVALIA should have analysed the extent to which 3M complied with the section of the GDPR on international transfers, as required by the public procurement specifications. Considering the lack of analysis of VIVALIA on this aspect, the Council of State suspended the decision to choose 3M as a contractor.

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 French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ==English Summary==
 ===Facts===
-VIVALIA, a public network of hopsitals, started a public procurement procedure to find a contractor to process patient data of hospitals for statistics purposes. The contract was assigned to 3M, a US company that was already in the news for transferring data in the US and Russia without appropriate safeguards. On this basis, a third party, which also took part in the public procurement procedure, challenged the decision of VIVALIA to choose 3M as a contractor.
+VIVALIA, a public network of hopsitals, started a public tender to find a contractor to process patient data of hospitals for statistical purposes. The contract was assigned to 3M, a US company that was already in the news for transferring data to the US and Russia without appropriate safeguards. On this basis, a third party, which also took part in the public procurement procedure, challenged VIVALIA's decision.
 ===Holding===
-The Council of State considered that VIVALIA should have analysed to which extent 3M was compliant with the section of the GDPR on transfer, which is an entire part of the public procurement specifications. Considering the lack of analysis of VIVALIA on this aspect, the Council of State suspended the decision to choose 3M as a contractor.
+The Council of State considered that, before concluding the public tender, VIVALIA should have analysed the extent to which 3M complied with the section of the GDPR on international transfers, as required by the public procurement specifications. Considering the lack of analysis of VIVALIA on this aspect, the Council of State suspended the decision to choose 3M as a contractor.
 ==Comment==
 ''Share your comments here!''