151 infringements of GDPR. In any event, it was not a commitment to submit the “draft decision” within 21 days of receipt of FBI’s submissions. Nor do I believe that the statement can reasonably be read as such or as suggesting that the DPC would not do what it said it would do in the PDD and in the correspondence, and subsequently in Ms. Dixon’s affidavit, namely, carefully consider the submissions made by FBI. Of course, if FBI does now avail of the opportunity to make submissions in response to the PDD and if the DPC does not carefully consider and take those submissions into account when deciding on the “draft decision” for the Article 60 process, or if FBI believes that any such “draft decision” is incorrect as a matter of law or perhaps even as a matter of fact, the possibility of further judicial review proceedings does arise. 312.
In conclusion, therefore, I do not accept that a reasonable person would reasonably
apprehend premature judgment on the part of the DPC in deciding to commence the inquiry and in issuing the PDD. Therefore, I reject this ground of challenge. 17. Alleged Breach of Fair Procedures: Involvement of Commissioner at Investigation and Decision-Making Stages (1) Summary of Parties’ Positions (1) FBI 313.
FBI contends that under the procedure adopted by the DPC in the PDD, the
Commissioner, as the sole member of the DPC, will be involved in all stages of the inquiry and, in particular, in the investigative and decision-making stages. It noted that the PDD was made by the Commissioner, as the sole member of the DPC, and that that is apparent from the use of the first person throughout the document and from the statement at para. 1.3 of the PDD that the Commissioner, as the “sole decision-maker of the [DPC]” was presenting “my preliminary view on the issues arising…” (para. 1.3). It further noted that the DPC’s letter of 28th August, 2020 enclosing the PDD was signed by the Commissioner. FBI contends that the
