Article 53 GDPR

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 07:56, 22 August 2023 by Ng (talk | contribs)
Article 53 - General conditions for the members of the supervisory authority
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 53 - General conditions for the members of the supervisory authority

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

Recital 117: Establishment of Independent Supervisory Authorities
The establishment of supervisory authorities in Member States, empowered to perform their tasks and exercise their powers with complete independence, is an essential component of the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data. Member States should be able to establish more than one supervisory authority, to reflect their constitutional, organisational and administrative structure.

Recital 121: General Conditions for the Member(s) of Supervisory Authorities
The general conditions for the member or members of the supervisory authority should be laid down by law in each Member State and should in particular provide that those members are to be appointed, by means of a transparent procedure, either by the parliament, government or the head of State of the Member State on the basis of a proposal from the government, a member of the government, the parliament or a chamber of the parliament, or by an independent body entrusted under Member State law. In order to ensure the independence of the supervisory authority, the member or members should act with integrity, 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. The supervisory authority should have its own staff, chosen by the supervisory authority or an independent body established by Member State law, which should be subject to the exclusive direction of the member or members of the supervisory authority.

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 ordinary coming to an end of the duties of SA members. It sets out three reasons for the ordinary termination of the mandate of a SA member: expiry of term of office, resignation and compulsory retirement. Internal reorganisations of the SA, real or alleged, do not fall within the mandatory cases under Article 53(3) GDPR and therefore do not justify the termination of the mandate.[16]

The aim of the limitation of reasons for the termination of mandates of SA members is to limit the exposure of members of SAs to political influences.[17] This way the independence of SAs and its members is safeguarded. Full terms in office also further contribute to the effectiveness of the work of SAs and its members.

Case law: In its judgment  C- 288/2012, Commission v Hungary, the CJEU held that while the states are entitled to restructure their data protection systems and SAs such restructuring may not result in a preliminary termination of the mandate of a SA member. Preliminary termination of the SA member’s mandate would unjustifiably interfere with the independence of SAs.[18]

Members of SAs can be employed in SAs. In Such cases the conditions for the termination of the employment of members must be in line with the provisions of Article 53 GDPR. Rules on termination of employment must be determined by law according to Article 54(1)(f) GDPR.

Expiry of the term of office

Normally, the duties of a SA member end “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 term in office of a SA member also expires in case of death.[19]

Example: The member of a SA was nominated in September 2022 for a 6-year term in accordance with the national law. Her mandate will expire 6 years after its beginning.

Resignation

Every member of SA can voluntarily decide to end his duties before the end of the mandate. It should be highlighted that resignation should be voluntary, so not pressured by government or parliament.[20]

Example: A member of a SA decides that he wants to resign for family reasons and resigns two years into his 6-year term in office.

Compulsory retirement

Compulsory retirement is an option in cases of retirement due to age or illness. It must be provided for in the national law of the state before the SA member is nominated to comply with the requirement of independence of SAs.[21]

Example: According to a member state’s law officials can work until the age of 70 years. Once they reach 70 years of age they retire.

(4) Dismissal of SA 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: xxx

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category: Article 53 GDPR

References

  1. For examples, see FRA, Elements of independence of the data protection authorities in the EU, p.19 (available here).
  2. Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  3. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 4 (NOMOS 2019).
  4. https://edps.europa.eu/about-edps/supervisors_en
  5. Recital 121 GDPR.
  6. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  7. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  8. Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 54 GDPR, margin numbers 8 and 9 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  9. Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 21 (Nomos 2022).
  10. Ziebarth, in Sydow, Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 18 (Nomos 2018, 2nd edition).
  11. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, page 889 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  12. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 6 (NOMOS 2019).
  13. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 6 (NOMOS 2019).
  14. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 6 (NOMOS 2019).
  15. See Recital 122 GDPR.
  16. 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".
  17. Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 10 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  18. CJEU in C-288/2012 - Commission v Hungary, paras 53 to 59.
  19. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 11 (Nomos 2019).
  20. Rightfully, Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 890 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  21. CJEU established in C-288/12 - Commission v Hungary, that member states cannot change the rules concerning the term in office of a members of SA during his term. Otherwise the option of such changes could result in a form of prior compliance by members of a SA and they would risk to not be able to act in all circumstances above all suspicion of partiality. To this extend see also Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 891 (Oxford University Press 2020).