Article 53 GDPR: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
{{Recital/117 GDPR}} | {{Recital/117 GDPR}} | ||
{{Recital/121 GDPR}} | {{Recital/121 GDPR}} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== |
Revision as of 13:16, 24 August 2021
Legal Text
1. Member States shall provide for each member of their supervisory authorities to be appointed by means of a transparent procedure by:
— their parliament;
— their government;
— their head of State; or
— an independent body entrusted with the appointment under Member State law.
2. Each member shall have the qualifications, experience and skills, in particular in the area of the protection of personal data, required to perform its duties and exercise its powers.
3. The duties of a member shall end in the event of the expiry of the term of office, resignation or compulsory retirement, in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned.
4. A member shall be dismissed only in cases of serious misconduct or if the member no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of the duties.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
This article completes Articles 51, 52, 54 GDPR when it comes to the independence of the supervisory authorities. It mixes the conditions and the procedure for their nomination (also further developed in Article 54(1) GDPR) and the conditions under which their mandate can be terminated.
(1) Authority Appointing the Members of the Supervisory Authority
In line with the specificities of the different constitutional and organisational rules applicable in each member state, this provision leaves up to the Members states to decide how the members of the supervisory authorities should be appointed: the Parliament, the Government, the head of State of an independent body.[1]
This provisions aims at providing transparency for the procedure: that means that this procedure should be made accessible to all. In our view, The procedure should also enable any citizen to apply for the position. Otherwise, it is difficult to argue that the appointment procedure was transparent if not open to the public.
We can regret that the appointment procedure will therefore always be a political decision, since the 4 authorities listed in Article 53(1) GDPR are obviously political organisations, except the possibility to have an independent body empowered to appoint the supervisory authority.
(2) Qualification, Expertise and Skills of the Members
Unfortunately, this provisions does not require Member states to test the knowledge of the members of the supervisory authorities. In our view, the national law should lay down the conditions (eg. experience, or diploma) that would further define the competence and expertise of the members.
(3) End of the Mandate
This provision mentions an exhaustive list of the cases where the mandate of the supervisory authorities can end. This is of course a guarantee of independence, which is also applicable to the judges, who cannot be dismissed except for serious reasons.
In this respect, reference should be made to Commission vs. Hungary, where the Court found that the complete independence of the SA was not guaranteed due to the premature termination of the mandate of the Commissioner for the protection of personal data, at the occasion of a re structuration of the SA.
Beside the Commission v. Hungary judgement of the CJEU, the Garai case is also interesting in this regard. It concerned the early dismissal of the members of the national regulatory authority (NRA) for electronic communications in Spain. The CJEU concluded that the dismissal of the members before the end of their mandates due to the merging between different regulatory body, was against the requirement of independence of the NRA in the "absence of any rules guaranteeing that such dismissals do not jeopardise the independence and impartiality of such members".
(4) Dismissal of Members
This provisions builds on the elements already mentioned in Article 53(3) GDPR and lays down an exhaustive list of cases where the members of the supervisory authorities can be dismissed: Serious misconduct or if the member does not longer fulfil the conditions attached to its duties. Of course, these cases should be explicitly provided in the law, and precise enough to avoid any interpretation, since the aim of this provisions is also to preserve the independence of the members. If some of these conditions are mentioned in the GDPR (see for example Article 54(1)(f) GDPR , some should be specified in the national legislation. As an example, according to Recital 121, the members of the supervisory authority should "refrain from any action that is incompatible with their duties and should not, during their term of office, engage in any incompatible occupation, whether gainful or not". Considering that such wording is only in a recital, and does not precisely mention what is a "incompatible occupation", national law should explicitly provide further details about the notion of "incompatibility", which cannot be left to the appreciation of the body deciding on the dismissal of the member: only the cases of incompatibility listed in national law can lead to a dismissal.
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category: Article 53 GDPR