Article 55 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
No edit summary
Line 199: Line 199:


== Commentary ==
== Commentary ==
Article 55 is a provision on jurisdiction setting out rules regarding competences of national supervisory authorities ("SAs").<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 906 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> Pursuant to Article 55(1) GDPR, the SA has jurisdiction on the territory of its member state. In particular, the SA’s jurisdiction applies to the processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller in that member state. Article 55(2) GDPR governs the competences of SAs regarding processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest. Paragraph 3 clarifies that SAs are not competent to supervise the work of the courts in the exercise of their judicial function.
Article 55 is a provision on jurisdiction setting out rules regarding competences of national supervisory authorities (SAs).<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 906 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> Pursuant to Article 55(1) GDPR, the SA has jurisdiction on the territory of its member state. In particular, the SA’s jurisdiction applies to the processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller in that member state. Article 55(2) GDPR governs the competences of SAs regarding processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest. Paragraph 3 clarifies that SAs are not competent to supervise the work of the courts in the exercise of their judicial function.


Competences of SAs in cases of cross-border processing are governed by [[Article 56 GDPR]]. Cross-border processing is defined in [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(23) GDPR]].
Competences of SAs in cases of cross-border processing are governed by [[Article 56 GDPR]]. Cross-border processing is defined in [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(23) GDPR]].


=== (1) Competence of the Supervisory Authority ===
=== (1) Competence of the supervisory authority (SA) ===
Article 55(1) GDPR is limiting the jurisdiction of a SA to the territory of its own state. It expresses a basic principle of public international law, the principle of sovereignty: a state has the power to enforce the law within its national borders through its national authorities. <ref>''Ziebarth,'' in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 3 (Nomos 2022).</ref> ''“It also confirms the role of SA as enforcement authorities, having competence on national territory equal to other public bodies and judicial authorities.”''<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 904 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>  
Article 55(1) GDPR is limiting the jurisdiction of a SA to the territory of its own state. It expresses a basic principle of public international law, the principle of sovereignty: a state has the power to enforce the law within its national borders through its national authorities. <ref>''Ziebarth,'' in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 3 (Nomos 2022).</ref> ''“It also confirms the role of SA as enforcement authorities, having competence on national territory equal to other public bodies and judicial authorities.”''<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 904 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>  


At the same time, in accordance with the principle of sovereignty, each state is prohibited to exercise power or authority on the territory of another state.<ref>''Ziebarth,'' in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 3 (Nomos 2022).</ref>  
On the other hand, in accordance with the principle of sovereignty, each state is prohibited to exercise power or authority on the territory of another state.<ref>''Ziebarth,'' in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 3 (Nomos 2022).</ref>  


==== Each supervisory authority (SA) ====
==== Each supervisory authority (SA) ====
According to [[Article 51 GDPR]] each member state must establish at least one SA responsible to monitor the application of the GDPR. If several SAs co-exist in one member state, each SA does not need to be competent for the whole territory of the state. It is a question of national law, how the jurisdiction is divided between SAs within a state.<ref>''Boehm'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 16 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref>
This provision applies for each SA. If several SAs co-exist in one member state ([[Article 51 GDPR]]), each of them does not need to be competent for the whole territory of the state. It is a question of national law, how the jurisdiction is divided between SAs within a state.<ref>''Boehm'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 16 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref>


==== Is competent ====
==== Is competent ====
The competence of a SA on the territory of its own member state extends to all of its tasks and powers.
The competence of a SA on the territory of its own member state extends to all of its tasks and powers, icluding investigative and corrective powers under [[Article 58 GDPR]]. However, while the powers of SAs are limited to the territory of its state, in the digital environment the place of processing of data and the place where the effects of this processing on individuals shows are not necessarily the same.<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 906 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> <blockquote>Case law: In case C-230/14, ''Weltimmo'', CJ EU stated that a SA cannot impose penalties outside the territory of its own member state but it can examine a complaint and exercise investigative powers against a company established in another member state which was directing its activities to residents of its state. For finding an infringement and imposing penalties the SA must request cooperation of SA of the establishment in accordance with the rules on cooperation.<ref>CJEU [[CJEU - C-230/14 - Weltimmo|''C-230/14 - Weltimmo'']], paragraphs 53 to 57.</ref></blockquote>Recital 122 GDPR takes this into account with regard to competences of SAs. It partially follows the same concepts as [[Article 3 GDPR]] determining the scope of the GDPR as Article 55 GDPR provides for the  jurisdiction of a SA for every processing that falls under the GDPR. In this regard Recital 122 GDPR specifies that SAs should in particular have jurisdiction over:


In the digital environment the place of processing of data and the place where the effects of this processing on individuals shows are not necessarily the same.<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 906 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> In Recital 122 GDPR takes this into account with regard to competences of SAs. It specifies that SAs should in particular have jurisdiction over:
===== a) processing in the context of the activities of an establishment on the territory of its own member state =====
<blockquote>Example: Spanish SA has jurisdiction over processing activities of Spanish company ES that collects and stores data of its customers.</blockquote>The coconcepts of "in the context of its activities" and "establishment" are further discussed in [[Article 4 GDPR]] of this commentary.


* processing in the context of the activities of an establishment on the territory of its own Member State,
===== b) processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest (see commentary to paragraph 55(2) GDPR below), =====
* processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest (see (2) Responsibility Regarding Processing in the Public Interest bellow),  
<blockquote>Example: A Portugese SA is competent to monitor processing of employees data by a Potguese Ministry. </blockquote>
* processing affecting data subjects on its territory and,
* processing carried out by a controller or processor not established in the Union when targeting data subjects residing on its territory.


Recital 122 GDPR partially follows the same concepts as [[Article 3 GDPR]] determining the scope of the GDPR, but the list does not limit the competences of SAs to those situations. With regard to competences of SAs, [[Article 3 GDPR]] cannot be directly applied as it delas with the territorial scope of the GDPR and not with the question of competences of national SAs.<ref>''Polenz'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 6 (Nomos 2019).</ref>  
===== c) processing affecting data subjects on its territory, and =====
A SA of a member state is competent when processing affects data subjects on the territory of its state. In general, when the processing in question concerns only residents of one member state, a SA of that state will be competent to investigate and take a decision in this case. In particularly, if there is no transnational element and also the controller is located on the territory of this member state. In situations where a complaint was lodged with a SA by one of its residents who was affected and the controller has no establishment in this state, the SA will have to ask the SA of the establishment of the controller for cooperation in accordance with [[Article 61 GDPR|Article 61]] and [[Article 62 GDPR|Article 62]]. A final decision establishing a violation and imposing corrective measures and a fine should be issued by the national SA where the controller is established.<ref>''Polenz'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 9 (Nomos 2019).</ref>


===== Linking of competences to the establishment =====
On the other hand, processing of data can affect data subjects in several member states, in particuarly cross-border processing. In such cases SAs have to act and handle cases in accordance with the rules on allocation of competences between the lead supervisory authority (LSA) and other supervisory authorities concerned. For more information see in particularly commentary to [[Article 56 GDPR]] and [[Article 60 GDPR]].<ref>CJEU [[CJEU - C-230/14 - Weltimmo|''C-230/14 - Weltimmo'']]'','' paragraph 57. See also CJEU [[CJEU - C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit|''C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others'']], paragraph 53. </ref>
A national SA has jurisdiction when an establishment of a controller or a processor is on its territory and processing is taking place in the context of the activity of this establishment. The concept of establishment was developed by the CJEU and requires a  real and effective activity exercised through stable arrangements. Existence of a separate legal entity or a specific legal form is not required.<ref>CJEU ''[[CJEU - C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit|C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others]], paragraph 22''. See also  [[CJEU - C-230/14 - Weltimmo|''CJEU C-230/14 - Weltimmo'']], paragraphs 29 to 33.</ref>


The processing in question must be linked with the establishment to the extent that it can be considered to take place in the context of activities of the establishment. This means that processing does not need to be carried out by the establishment concerned itself but a link between the activity of the establishment and data processing must exist.<ref>CJEU in [[CJEU - C‑131/12 - Google Spain|C-131/12 - ''Google Spain'']], paragraphs 52 to 60.</ref>
===== d) processing carried out by a controller or processor not established in the EEA when targeting data subjects residing on its territory. =====
A national SA has also jurisdiction when a controller and processor that is not established in any of the states of the European Economic Area (EEA), is processing the data of its residents in relation to offering goods or services or through monitoring their behavior. This refers to situations when GDPR is applicable according to [[Article 3 GDPR|Article 3(2) GDPR]]. In this situations, several SAs can be competent to act in parallel, each concerning the data processing of their residents.  


Both concepts are further discussed in [[Article 4 GDPR]] of this commentary.<blockquote><u>Common misunderstanding</u>: SAs are only competent to investigate the processing of data by controllers established and registered in its member state.</blockquote>
In this situations the main question is how to enforce a decision when a violation of the GDPR is established. In particularly, how corrective measures and fines can be enforced, since the controller or processor are located outside the territory and thus outside the reach of any member state, especially in situations when a controller has not designated a representative on  the territory of the European Union (in breach of [[Article 27 GDPR|Article 27(1) GDPR]]). In such situations s SA may ask the competent authorities of the country of the processor for cooperation under an international agreement between the countries.<ref>See ''Polenz'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin numbers 16 and 17 (Nomos 2019). See also ''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> It  may also order that the data has to remain within the Union and cannot be transferred to a third country.<ref>See ''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020). Regarding the option that the data must remain within the territory of the Union to secure the protection of individuals and their rights under the GDPR see also CJEU ''C-293/12 - Digital Rights Ireland,'' paragraph 68, [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-293/12&language=de available here].</ref>
 
===== Competence for public authorities =====
Competence for processing by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest is addressed and further discussed in Article 55(2) Responsibility Regarding Processing in the Public Interest bellow.
 
In particular, if a controller has an establishment within a Member State, the authority of that State will have jurisdiction over it, regardless of where the processing is carried out. The competence of a SA on a territory of its own Member State includes’ among the others, “''handling complaints lodged by a data subject, conducting investigations on the application of this Regulation and promoting public awareness of the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to the processing of personal data''”.<ref>See Recital 120 GDPR.</ref>
 
===== Competence due to processing affecting data subjects on its territory =====
When processing affects only data subjects on the territory of the SAs where the complaint was lodged and the controller has an establishment there, SA is responsible to investigate and decide in the case. On the other hand, processing of data can affect data subjects in several member states. In such cases SAs have to act and handle cases in accordance with the rules on allocation of competences between the lead supervisory authority (LSA) and other supervisory authorities and other rules on allocation of competences and cooperation between SAs laid down in the consistency procedure and the cooperation procedure in [[Article 65 GDPR]] and [[Article 60 GDPR]] to [[Article 67 GDPR]]. SAs are under the duty of sincere and effective cooperation and have to respect the allocation of competences''.''<ref>CJEU [[CJEU - C-230/14 - Weltimmo|''C-230/14 - Weltimmo'']]'','' paragraph 57. See also  CJEU  [[CJEU - C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit|''C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others'']], paragraph 53. </ref>
 
In particularly, data subjects in several member states are affected in situations of cross-border processing. In this case the procedure is led by the SA of the main establishment of the processor - the lead supervisory authority (LSA). LSA is competent to lead the investigation and issue the final decision against the controller. SAs of all states whose residents are affected by processing can participate in the investigation and decision making as SAs concerned. Additionally, the SA with which the complaint was lodged is also competent for issuing a decision rejecting the complaint or any parts thereof.
In situations where a complaint was lodged with a SA by one of its residents who was affected and the controller has no establishment in this state, the SA will have to ask the SA of the establishment of the controller for cooperation in accordance with [[Article 61 GDPR|Article 61]] and [[Article 62 GDPR|Article 62]]. A final decision establishing a violation and imposing corrective measures and a fine should be issued by the national SA where the controller is established.<ref>''Polenz'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 9 (Nomos 2019).</ref>
 
<blockquote><u>Case law</u>: In case C-230/14, ''Weltimmo'', CJEU stated that a SA cannot impose penalties outside the territory of its own member state but it can examine a complaint and exercise investigative powers against a company established in another member state which was directing its activities to residents of its state. For finding an infringement and imposing penalties the SA must request cooperation of SA of the establishment in accordance with the rules on cooperation.<ref>CJEU [[CJEU - C-230/14 - Weltimmo|''C-230/14 - Weltimmo'']], paragraphs 53 to 57.</ref> </blockquote>
 
===== Competence for controllers not established in the Union (market principle) =====
A national SA has also jurisdiction when a controller and processor, which is not established in any of the member state, is processing the data of its residents in relation to offering goods or services or through monitoring their behavior. This refers to situations when GDPR is applicable according to [[Article 3 GDPR|Article 3(2) GDPR]]. For more information regarding conditions for applicability of GDPR in this circumstances see commentary to [[Article 3 GDPR|Article 3(2) GDPR]].
 
In this situations, several SAs can be competent to act in parallel, each concerning the data processing of their residents. SAs may use the consistency mechanism to implement and apply the GDPR throughout the Union in a consistent manner.
 
In this situations the main question is how to enforce a decision when a violation of GDPR is established. In particularly, how corrective measures and fines can be enforced, since the controller or processor are located outside the territory and thus outside the reach of any member state, especially in situations when a controller has not designated a representative on  the territory of the European Union (in breach of [[Article 27 GDPR|Article 27(1) GDPR]]). In such situations s SA may ask the competent authorities of the country of the processor for cooperation under an international agreement between the countries.<ref>See ''Polenz'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin numbers 16 and 17 (Nomos 2019). See also ''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> It  may also order that the data has to remain within the Union and cannot be transferred to a third country.<ref>See ''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020). Regarding the option that the data must remain within the territory of the Union to secure the protection of individuals and their rights under the GDPR see also CJEU ''C-293/12 - Digital Rights Ireland,'' paragraph 68, [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-293/12&language=de available here].</ref>


==== Performance of tasks and the exercise of powers ====
==== Performance of tasks and the exercise of powers ====
Line 259: Line 239:
The GDPR in several provisions mandates member states to adopt more specific national rules on data protection, such as on special categories of data ([[Article 9 GDPR]]) or human resources data ([[Article 88 GDPR]]). It is not evident which national law is applicable in such instances as GDPR does not contain any rules on applicable law for data processed within the Union. The SA of one state may have to apply the national rules of another state in such cases concerning such situations.<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 908 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>
The GDPR in several provisions mandates member states to adopt more specific national rules on data protection, such as on special categories of data ([[Article 9 GDPR]]) or human resources data ([[Article 88 GDPR]]). It is not evident which national law is applicable in such instances as GDPR does not contain any rules on applicable law for data processed within the Union. The SA of one state may have to apply the national rules of another state in such cases concerning such situations.<ref>''Hijmans'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 908 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>


=== (2) Responsibility Regarding Processing in the Public Interest ===
=== (2) Responsibility regarding processing in the public interest ===
Article 55(2) GDPR regulates the SA’s competence in case of processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies complying with a legal obligation or performing a task in the public interest. The provision confirms the competence of the SA in whose Member State the public authority or private body is located. In such cases, Article 56 GDPR will not apply and the only competent SA to exercise its powers should be the one where the public authority or private body is established. This rule thus establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the national SA.<ref>''Körffer'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2021).</ref>  
Article 55(2) GDPR regulates the SA’s competence in case of processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies complying with a legal obligation or performing a task in the public interest. The provision confirms the competence of the SA in whose Member State the public authority or private body is located. In such cases, Article 56 GDPR will not apply and the only competent SA to exercise its powers should be the one where the public authority or private body is established. This rule thus establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the national SA.<ref>''Körffer'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2021).</ref>  


Line 280: Line 260:
Even if Article 55(3) GDPR only mention courts, it seems obvious that other judicial bodies – such as the prosecutor office – should be subject to independent supervision separate from the SA.<ref>See Directorate-General for Research and Documentation, Research Note on the Supervision of courts’ compliance with personal data protection rules when acting in their judicial capacity (available [https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-11/ndr_2018-004_synthese-neutralisee-en.pdf here]).</ref> This is confirmed by Article 80 of the Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680) that states that courts and other independent judicial authorities should always be subject to independent supervision.   
Even if Article 55(3) GDPR only mention courts, it seems obvious that other judicial bodies – such as the prosecutor office – should be subject to independent supervision separate from the SA.<ref>See Directorate-General for Research and Documentation, Research Note on the Supervision of courts’ compliance with personal data protection rules when acting in their judicial capacity (available [https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-11/ndr_2018-004_synthese-neutralisee-en.pdf here]).</ref> This is confirmed by Article 80 of the Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680) that states that courts and other independent judicial authorities should always be subject to independent supervision.   


==== Supervisory authority (SA) not competent ====
==== Supervisory authority (SA) is (not) competent ====
Courts are not totally exempt from control by SAs. They are exempt only when they are acting in their judicial capacity, but not regarding activities that are outside their judicial capacity. In this regard CJEU held that processing of personal data carried out in the context of a court's communication policy on cases falls outside the competence of a SA.<ref>See [https://gdprhub.eu/CJEU%20-%20C-245/20%20-%20Autoriteit%20Persoonsgegevens ''C-245/20 -'' ''Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens''], paragraph 37.</ref>  
Courts are not totally exempt from control by SAs. They are exempt only when they are acting in their judicial capacity, but not regarding activities that are outside their judicial capacity. <blockquote>Case law: CJ EU considered in case [https://gdprhub.eu/CJEU%20-%20C-245/20%20-%20Autoriteit%20Persoonsgegevens ''C-245/20 -'' ''Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens'']  that processing of personal data carried out in the context of a court's communication policy on cases falls outside the competence of a SA.<ref>See [https://gdprhub.eu/CJEU%20-%20C-245/20%20-%20Autoriteit%20Persoonsgegevens ''C-245/20 -'' ''Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens''], paragraph 37.</ref></blockquote>On the other hand, activities of judicial administration, such as practices, procedures and offices that deal with the management of the system of the courts are subject to the control by a SA. Thus, processing of the data of the staff hired by a court remains subject to the supervision of the SA.  
 
On the other hand, activities of judicial administration, such as practices, procedures and offices that deal with the management of the system of the courts are subject to the control by a SA. Thus, processing of the data of the staff hired by a court remains subject to the supervision of the SA.  


==== Acting in judicial capacity ====
===== Acting in judicial capacity =====
It concluded that processing of personal data carried out by courts in the context of their communication policy on cases falls outside the competence of a SA.<blockquote>Case law: In case [https://gdprhub.eu/CJEU%20-%20C-245/20%20-%20Autoriteit%20Persoonsgegevens ''C-245/20 -'' ''Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens''] CJEU clarified that processing operations carried out by courts ‘acting in their judicial capacity’ must be understood, as not being limited to the processing of data in specific cases, but as referring, more broadly, to all processing operations carried out by courts in the course of their judicial activity whose supervision by a SA would be likely, whether directly or indirectly, to have an influence on the independence of their members or to weigh on their decisions. <ref>See CJEU ''[[CJEU - C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens|C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens]]'', paragraphs 34 to 39.</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>Case law: In case [https://gdprhub.eu/CJEU%20-%20C-245/20%20-%20Autoriteit%20Persoonsgegevens ''C-245/20 -'' ''Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens''] CJ EU clarified that processing operations carried out by courts ‘acting in their judicial capacity’ must be understood, as not being limited to the processing of data in specific cases, but as referring, more broadly, to all processing operations carried out by courts in the course of their judicial activity whose supervision by a SA would be likely, whether directly or indirectly, to have an influence on the independence of their members or to weigh on their decisions. <ref>See CJEU ''[[CJEU - C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens|C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens]]'', paragraphs 34 to 39.</ref></blockquote>


== Decisions ==
== Decisions ==

Revision as of 00:15, 16 October 2023

Article 55 - Competence
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 55 - Competence

1. Each supervisory authority shall be competent for the performance of the tasks assigned to and the exercise of the powers conferred on it in accordance with this Regulation on the territory of its own Member State.

2. Where processing is carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting on the basis of point (c) or (e) of Article 6(1), the supervisory authority of the Member State concerned shall be competent. In such cases Article 56 does not apply.

3. Supervisory authorities shall not be competent to supervise processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 20: Respect to the Independence of the Judiciary
While this Regulation applies, inter alia, to the activities of courts and other judicial authorities, Union or Member State law could specify the processing operations and processing procedures in relation to the processing of personal data by courts and other judicial authorities. The competence of the supervisory authorities should not cover the processing of personal data when courts are acting in their judicial capacity, in order to safeguard the independence of the judiciary in the performance of its judicial tasks, including decision-making. It should be possible to entrust supervision of such data processing operations to specific bodies within the judicial system of the Member State, which should, in particular ensure compliance with the rules of this Regulation, enhance awareness among members of the judiciary of their obligations under this Regulation and handle complaints in relation to such data processing operations.

Recital 122: Competence of Supervisory Authorities
Each supervisory authority should be competent on the territory of its own Member State to exercise the powers and to perform the tasks conferred on it in accordance with this Regulation. This should cover in particular the processing in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller or processor on the territory of its own Member State, the processing of personal data carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest, processing affecting data subjects on its territory or processing carried out by a controller or processor not established in the Union when targeting data subjects residing on its territory. This should include handling complaints lodged by a data subject, conducting investigations on the application of this Regulation and promoting public awareness of the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to the processing of personal data.

Recital 128: No Lead Supervisory Authority for Processing Carried Out by Public Authorities or Private Bodies in the Public Interest
The rules on the lead supervisory authority and the one-stop-shop mechanism should not apply where the processing is carried out by public authorities or private bodies in the public interest. In such cases the only supervisory authority competent to exercise the powers conferred to it in accordance with this Regulation should be the supervisory authority of the Member State where the public authority or private body is established.

Commentary

Article 55 is a provision on jurisdiction setting out rules regarding competences of national supervisory authorities (SAs).[1] Pursuant to Article 55(1) GDPR, the SA has jurisdiction on the territory of its member state. In particular, the SA’s jurisdiction applies to the processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller in that member state. Article 55(2) GDPR governs the competences of SAs regarding processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest. Paragraph 3 clarifies that SAs are not competent to supervise the work of the courts in the exercise of their judicial function.

Competences of SAs in cases of cross-border processing are governed by Article 56 GDPR. Cross-border processing is defined in Article 4(23) GDPR.

(1) Competence of the supervisory authority (SA)

Article 55(1) GDPR is limiting the jurisdiction of a SA to the territory of its own state. It expresses a basic principle of public international law, the principle of sovereignty: a state has the power to enforce the law within its national borders through its national authorities. [2] “It also confirms the role of SA as enforcement authorities, having competence on national territory equal to other public bodies and judicial authorities.”[3]

On the other hand, in accordance with the principle of sovereignty, each state is prohibited to exercise power or authority on the territory of another state.[4]

Each supervisory authority (SA)

This provision applies for each SA. If several SAs co-exist in one member state (Article 51 GDPR), each of them does not need to be competent for the whole territory of the state. It is a question of national law, how the jurisdiction is divided between SAs within a state.[5]

Is competent

The competence of a SA on the territory of its own member state extends to all of its tasks and powers, icluding investigative and corrective powers under Article 58 GDPR. However, while the powers of SAs are limited to the territory of its state, in the digital environment the place of processing of data and the place where the effects of this processing on individuals shows are not necessarily the same.[6]

Case law: In case C-230/14, Weltimmo, CJ EU stated that a SA cannot impose penalties outside the territory of its own member state but it can examine a complaint and exercise investigative powers against a company established in another member state which was directing its activities to residents of its state. For finding an infringement and imposing penalties the SA must request cooperation of SA of the establishment in accordance with the rules on cooperation.[7]

Recital 122 GDPR takes this into account with regard to competences of SAs. It partially follows the same concepts as Article 3 GDPR determining the scope of the GDPR as Article 55 GDPR provides for the jurisdiction of a SA for every processing that falls under the GDPR. In this regard Recital 122 GDPR specifies that SAs should in particular have jurisdiction over:

a) processing in the context of the activities of an establishment on the territory of its own member state

Example: Spanish SA has jurisdiction over processing activities of Spanish company ES that collects and stores data of its customers.

The coconcepts of "in the context of its activities" and "establishment" are further discussed in Article 4 GDPR of this commentary.

b) processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies acting in the public interest (see commentary to paragraph 55(2) GDPR below),

Example: A Portugese SA is competent to monitor processing of employees data by a Potguese Ministry.

c) processing affecting data subjects on its territory, and

A SA of a member state is competent when processing affects data subjects on the territory of its state. In general, when the processing in question concerns only residents of one member state, a SA of that state will be competent to investigate and take a decision in this case. In particularly, if there is no transnational element and also the controller is located on the territory of this member state. In situations where a complaint was lodged with a SA by one of its residents who was affected and the controller has no establishment in this state, the SA will have to ask the SA of the establishment of the controller for cooperation in accordance with Article 61 and Article 62. A final decision establishing a violation and imposing corrective measures and a fine should be issued by the national SA where the controller is established.[8]

On the other hand, processing of data can affect data subjects in several member states, in particuarly cross-border processing. In such cases SAs have to act and handle cases in accordance with the rules on allocation of competences between the lead supervisory authority (LSA) and other supervisory authorities concerned. For more information see in particularly commentary to Article 56 GDPR and Article 60 GDPR.[9]

d) processing carried out by a controller or processor not established in the EEA when targeting data subjects residing on its territory.

A national SA has also jurisdiction when a controller and processor that is not established in any of the states of the European Economic Area (EEA), is processing the data of its residents in relation to offering goods or services or through monitoring their behavior. This refers to situations when GDPR is applicable according to Article 3(2) GDPR. In this situations, several SAs can be competent to act in parallel, each concerning the data processing of their residents.

In this situations the main question is how to enforce a decision when a violation of the GDPR is established. In particularly, how corrective measures and fines can be enforced, since the controller or processor are located outside the territory and thus outside the reach of any member state, especially in situations when a controller has not designated a representative on  the territory of the European Union (in breach of Article 27(1) GDPR). In such situations s SA may ask the competent authorities of the country of the processor for cooperation under an international agreement between the countries.[10] It may also order that the data has to remain within the Union and cannot be transferred to a third country.[11]

Performance of tasks and the exercise of powers

SA’s tasks and powers include “handling complaints lodged by a data subject, conducting investigations on the application of this Regulation [GDPR] and promoting public awareness of the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to the processing of personal data”.[12] Tasks of SAs are listed in Article 57 GDPR. Powers of SAs are listed in Article 58 GDPR.

On the territory of its own member state

The jurisdiction of a SA and its coercive power is limited to the territory of its own state. This means that a SA of one member state cannot investigate on the territory of another state.[13]

Example: French DPA can conduct an investigation on the premises of a controller, if the premises is located in France. At the same time the French DPA cannot on its own conduct an investigation on the premises of a processor, if the premises is located in Spain.

It also means that a decision issued by a SA cannot be enforced in another state.

Example: If the Austrian SA would issue a decision by which it would ban further processing of data and impose a 150.000 EUR fine against a controller from France that has no establishment in Austria the Austrian authority would not have the power or any means to force the controller to comply with the decision and pay the fine since it is not on the territory of Austria.

At the same time according to the CJEU case law “the law should make it possible for individuals to enforce their right to protection[14] Therefore the GDPR has provided a cooperation and consistency mechanism between SAs under Article 56 GDPR and Articles 60 to 67 GDPR, which should result in final decisions being issued by the national SA of the establishment of the controller.[15]

No rule on applicable law

The GDPR in several provisions mandates member states to adopt more specific national rules on data protection, such as on special categories of data (Article 9 GDPR) or human resources data (Article 88 GDPR). It is not evident which national law is applicable in such instances as GDPR does not contain any rules on applicable law for data processed within the Union. The SA of one state may have to apply the national rules of another state in such cases concerning such situations.[16]

(2) Responsibility regarding processing in the public interest

Article 55(2) GDPR regulates the SA’s competence in case of processing carried out by public authorities or private bodies complying with a legal obligation or performing a task in the public interest. The provision confirms the competence of the SA in whose Member State the public authority or private body is located. In such cases, Article 56 GDPR will not apply and the only competent SA to exercise its powers should be the one where the public authority or private body is established. This rule thus establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the national SA.[17]

The rule should prevent SAs of another state from monitoring public authorities and other bodies carrying out tasks in public interest. Also, the monitoring of processing of data to comply with a legal obligation imposed by the public law of a member state, such as collection of telecommunication data, should be subject to control by the national SA of that state.[18]

Processing carried out by public authorities

This provision applies to public authorities when they perform their public duties by virtue of Article 6(1)(c)(e) GDPR. According to Recital 128 GDPR the rules on the LSA and the one-stop-shop mechanism should not apply where the processing is carried out by public authorities. In such cases the only supervisory authority competent should be the supervisory authority of the state where the public authority is established.[19]

Any other activities by a public body, such as publicly owned undertaking, that would not be performance of public tasks, such as commercial activities, are not subject to the exception under Article 55(2) GDPR. There may be a LSA.[20]

Processing carried out by private entities performing tasks under a legal obligation or under the public interest

Also, private entities performing tasks under a legal obligation or in the public interest will not be subject to the cooperation mechanism. That would imply that the obligation of air carriers to retain data or data retention obligation of electronic communication providers would not be subject to the one-stop shop procedure. However, when the private entity is processing data under any other legal basis than Article 6(1)(c)(e), for example based on consent or contract (Article 6(1)(b)), the same entity is subject to Article 56. This means that in case of cross-border processing the LSA will be responsible for monitoring the entities' compliance with the GDPR. This can lead to situations where the same entity can be subject to monitoring by different SAs in relation to different processing of same data.

For example: Passenger data that are collected by airlines for commercial purposes are subject to control by the LSA (SA of main establishment of the airline). When data on passengers is transferred to the public authority where the plane will land or take off under Article 8 Directive 2016/681, the transfer is subject to the control of the SA of the member state on the territory of which the plane will land or take off.[21]

(3) Processing by courts in their judicial capacity

In order to protect the independence of the judiciary, Article 55(3) GDPR exempts SAs from supervising the activities of courts and other judicial authorities when they are acting in their judicial capacity. That does not mean that their activities are not subject to the GDPR, since this would be contrary to Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) but rather that the monitoring of personal data by the judiciary should be entrusted to specific bodies within the judicial system of the member state.[22]

Courts

Even if Article 55(3) GDPR only mention courts, it seems obvious that other judicial bodies – such as the prosecutor office – should be subject to independent supervision separate from the SA.[23] This is confirmed by Article 80 of the Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680) that states that courts and other independent judicial authorities should always be subject to independent supervision.

Supervisory authority (SA) is (not) competent

Courts are not totally exempt from control by SAs. They are exempt only when they are acting in their judicial capacity, but not regarding activities that are outside their judicial capacity.

Case law: CJ EU considered in case C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens that processing of personal data carried out in the context of a court's communication policy on cases falls outside the competence of a SA.[24]

On the other hand, activities of judicial administration, such as practices, procedures and offices that deal with the management of the system of the courts are subject to the control by a SA. Thus, processing of the data of the staff hired by a court remains subject to the supervision of the SA.

Acting in judicial capacity

Case law: In case C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens CJ EU clarified that processing operations carried out by courts ‘acting in their judicial capacity’ must be understood, as not being limited to the processing of data in specific cases, but as referring, more broadly, to all processing operations carried out by courts in the course of their judicial activity whose supervision by a SA would be likely, whether directly or indirectly, to have an influence on the independence of their members or to weigh on their decisions. [25]

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 55 GDPR

References

  1. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 906 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  2. Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 3 (Nomos 2022).
  3. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 904 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  4. Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 3 (Nomos 2022).
  5. Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 16 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  6. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, p. 906 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  7. CJEU C-230/14 - Weltimmo, paragraphs 53 to 57.
  8. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 9 (Nomos 2019).
  9. CJEU C-230/14 - Weltimmo, paragraph 57. See also CJEU C-645/19 - Facebook Ireland and others, paragraph 53.
  10. See Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin numbers 16 and 17 (Nomos 2019). See also Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  11. See Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020). Regarding the option that the data must remain within the territory of the Union to secure the protection of individuals and their rights under the GDPR see also CJEU C-293/12 - Digital Rights Ireland, paragraph 68, available here.
  12. See Recital 122 GDPR
  13. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  14. See CJEU C-230/14 - Weltimmo, paragraph 53. See also Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  15. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 907 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  16. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 908 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  17. Körffer, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2021).
  18. Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin numbers 7 and 10 to 13 (Nomos 2022).
  19. See Recital 128 GDPR and Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 18 (Nomos 2019). See also Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 55 GDPR, margin number 5 (Nomos 2022).
  20. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 909 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  21. Hijmans, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 55 GDPR, page 909 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  22. See Recital 20 GDPR and CJEU, in C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, paragraph 24.
  23. See Directorate-General for Research and Documentation, Research Note on the Supervision of courts’ compliance with personal data protection rules when acting in their judicial capacity (available here).
  24. See C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, paragraph 37.
  25. See CJEU C-245/20 - Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, paragraphs 34 to 39.