Article 53 GDPR
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
Article 53 GDPR regulates, for the first time by means of a European law, the manner of appointment of the members of the supervisory authority (SA), the qualities required to hold office, certain elements relating to the termination of office and the minimum conditions for removal in the event of misconduct. The provision, which partly integrates Article 51, Article 52 and Article 54 GDPR, has different characteristics depending on the different paragraphs. In some cases, it is directly applicable as a provision of an EU regulation, in others, it requires legislative intervention by the member states.
(1) Authority appointing the members of the supervisory authority (SA)
In line with the specificities of the different constitutional and organisational rules, this provision leaves the decision on how the member(s) of the supervisory authorities should be appointed up to the members states.[1] Pursuant to Article 54(1)(c) GDPR the rules and the the procedure for the appointment must be laid down in the law.
Transparent procedure
Irrespective of which body makes the appointment, the procedure must be transparent. This should ensure that the public is able to review and comprehend the appointment of a member of a SAs.[2] The GDPR does not provide any information on how a procedure should be structured to qualify as transparent. However, as a minimum requirement of transparency, publicity of the selection process should be fully adopted. The procedure should also show that several alternatives have been considered and evaluated according to the criteria specified by the GDPR.[3]
Example: The transparent procedure for the appointment of the president of EDPS in 2019 involved:
- A public call for candidates for the Supervisor posts resulted in the most competent applicants being shortlisted by an inter-institutional selection board;
- Following interviews with the shortlisted candidates, the selection board presented the European Commission with their recommendations for its review and submission to the European Parliament and the Council.
- Hearings to evaluate the experiences, skills and independence of the candidates took place in the European Parliament. A joint decision of the Parliament and Council was reached following their deliberations.[4]
Appointing body
Article 53(1) is naming four possible appointing bodies: the parliament, the government, the head of state or an independent body. If member(s) of the SA are appointed by the parliament, the government or the head of state the appointment should be made based on a proposal by the government, a member of the government, the parliament or a chamber of the parliament.[5] A joint appointment by different branches of government is not foreseen.[6] It is regrettable that the appointment procedure will imply, as a rule, a political decision, since three authorities listed in Article 53(1) GDPR are political organisations. In fact, independent bodies can also be appointed by entities of a political nature. In this case, therefore, it also cannot be ruled out that the appointment of the SA member be inspired by some political criteria.
For example: In France the President ofthe SA is appointed by the President of France and in the Netherlands the members of the SA are appointed by the King.[7]
(2) Qualification, expertise and skills of the member(s)
Article 53(2) GDPR stipulates that each SA member must ("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. In addition to expertise in data protection law, in particularly IT and organisational expertise are of relevance for the work of SA members.[8] Also general requirements, for example such as general requirements foreseen for all employees of the national administration can be prescribed for members.[9] Competence requirements must be provided by law pursuant to Article 54(1)(b) GDPR.
These competence requirements serve two purposes. On the one hand, at least in theory, this should contribute to the quality of work of SAs and consequently to the effectiveness of data protection. On the other hand, they act as a minimum barrier against appointments of a purely political nature, without adequate professional preparation.[10] However, Article 53(2) does not require member states to test the knowledge of the members. There is also no requirement that the members are chosen from independent individuals.[11]
Qualifications
The “qualification” includes the educational background, such as the completion of vocational training, the completion of a course of study, the acquisition of additional qualifications, and further training certificates in relation to the activities of the SA. The qualification is thus aimed at proving that theoretical knowledge has been acquired.[12]
Experience
The “experience” establishes a temporal reference in that what was learned has been applied and deepened in the practical activity.[13]
Example: DPOs have experience in the field of data protection.
Skills
“Skills” concerns the acquisition of practical knowledge and the necessary interdisciplinarity, which can be demonstrated, for example, by the performance of supervisory tasks and the exercise of supervisory powers. Regular participation in practice-relevant projects would be another proof of skills.[14]
Example: xxx.
Performance of tasks and the exercise of powers
SA’s tasks and powers include handling of complaints lodged by a data subject, conducting investigations on the application of the GDPR and promoting public awareness of the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to the processing of personal data.[15] Tasks of SAs are provided in Article 57 GDPR. Powers of SAs are listed in Article 58 GDPR.
(3) End of the mandate
Article 53(3) GDPR regulates the coming to an end of the duties of SA members. Normally, this happens “in the event of the expiry of the term of office”. The term of office is dealt with in Article 54(1) GDPR, as an obligation for the member states to include a provision in their national laws. The other cases bringing to an end of the mandate are the voluntary resignation or compulsory retirement. It should be highlighted that resignation should be voluntary, so not pressured by government or parliament.[16] Finally, it seems worth recalling that real or alleged internal reorganisations of the SA do not fall within the mandatory cases under Article 53(3) GDPR and therefore do not justify the termination of the mandate.[17]
Case law:
Example:
(4) Dismissal of members
Under Article 53(4) GDPR, an SA member can be dismissed only in two cases: serious misconduct or if they no longer fulfill the conditions required for the performance of the duties. The GDPR does not specify what these two important requirements entail nor is it clear which authority is responsible for deciding on removal or what procedural safeguards are in place, if any. These elements should be explicitly provided by member state law and be precise enough to avoid any misleading interpretation or arbitrariness.
Example:
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category: Article 53 GDPR
References
- ↑ For examples, see FRA, Elements of independence of the data protection authorities in the EU, p.19 (available here).
- ↑ Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 4 (NOMOS 2019).
- ↑ https://edps.europa.eu/about-edps/supervisors_en
- ↑ Recital 121 GDPR.
- ↑ Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 54 GDPR, margin numbers 8 and 9 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 21 (Nomos 2022).
- ↑ Ziebarth, in Sydow, Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 18 (Nomos 2018, 2nd edition).
- ↑ Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, page 889 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 6 (NOMOS 2019).
- ↑ Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 6 (NOMOS 2019).
- ↑ Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 6 (NOMOS 2019).
- ↑ See Recital 122 GDPR.
- ↑ Rightfully, Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 890 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ 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 restructuration 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 bodies 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".