Recital 143
EU GDPR

(143) Any natural or legal person has the right to bring an action for annulment of decisions of the Board before the Court of Justice under the conditions provided for in Article 263 TFEU.

As addressees of such decisions, the supervisory authorities concerned which wish to challenge them have to bring action within two months of being notified of them, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.

Where decisions of the Board are of direct and individual concern to a controller, processor or complainant, the latter may bring an action for annulment against those decisions within two months of their publication on the website of the Board, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.

Without prejudice to this right under Article 263 TFEU, each natural or legal person should have an effective judicial remedy before the competent national court against a decision of a supervisory authority which produces legal effects concerning that person.

Such a decision concerns in particular the exercise of investigative, corrective and authorisation powers by the supervisory authority or the dismissal or rejection of complaints.

However, the right to an effective judicial remedy does not encompass measures taken by supervisory authorities which are not legally binding, such as opinions issued by or advice provided by the supervisory authority.

Proceedings against a supervisory authority should be brought before the courts of the Member State where the supervisory authority is established and should be conducted in accordance with that Member State's procedural law.

Those courts should exercise full jurisdiction, which should include jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before them.

Where a complaint has been rejected or dismissed by a supervisory authority, the complainant may bring proceedings before the courts in the same Member State.

In the context of judicial remedies relating to the application of this Regulation, national courts which consider a decision on the question necessary to enable them to give judgment, may, or in the case provided for in Article 267 TFEU, must, request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Union law, including this Regulation.

Furthermore, where a decision of a supervisory authority implementing a decision of the Board is challenged before a national court and the validity of the decision of the Board is at issue, that national court does not have the power to declare the Board's decision invalid but must refer the question of validity to the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 267 TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice, where it considers the decision invalid.

However, a national court may not refer a question on the validity of the decision of the Board at the request of a natural or legal person which had the opportunity to bring an action for annulment of that decision, in particular if it was directly and individually concerned by that decision, but had not done so within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.


back  next
BG - CS - DA - DE - EL - EN - ES - ET - FI - FR - GA - HR - HU - IT - LT - LV - MT - NL - PL - PT - RO - SK - SL - SV

Möchten Sie als externe(r) Datenschutzbeauftragte(r) die Verordnung in der Praxis umsetzen? Dann werden Sie Lizenznehmer bei DSB-MIT-SYSTEM® und nutzen Sie unser Knowhow.Als Lizenznehmer können Sie den Verordnungstext hier kommentieren und dies in der Gruppe teilen. Auch das über 600-seitige und monatlich aktualisierte Praxishandbuch TOM-Guide® steht Ihnen (und Ihren Kunden) dann exklusiv zur Verfügung.

© SecureDataService, Nicholas Vollmer, Priorstr. 63, D-41189 Mönchengladbach, Germany, +49 2166 310932, regulation@securedataservice.de, www.securedataservice.de (siehe Impressum / Datenschutz) (06.12.2016)