167 355.
As regards the argument made by FBI that it was unlawful and disproportionate to
inquire into FBI prior to the publication of the EDPB guidance in circumstances where other regulated entities would be assessed by reference to that guidance and could conduct their activities by reference to it, I do not accept that that is so. I will consider this argument further under the separate ground of challenge advanced on this basis by FBI based on alleged inequality and discrimination. 356.
Finally, I should say that I do not attach much, if any, weight to the actions taken by
the supervisory authorities in France or Finland on which the DPC relied. I accept what Ms. Cunnane said about this at para. 51 of her second affidavit of 11th November, 2020. The French supervisory authority did not commence any inquiry but rather was invited by the Conseil d’État (Council of State) to submit observations in the context of proceedings brought by other parties. I also accept that the DPC provided very little information concerning the action of the supervisory authority in Finland. Although Ms. Cunnane made that point at para. 5.1 of her affidavit, the DPC did not provide any further information in any further affidavit. However, I have been in a position to consider this ground without reference to what may have happened in France or in Finland. 357.
For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that FBI is not entitled to succeed on
this ground of challenge. 20. Alleged Discrimination/Breach of FBI’s Right to Equality: Inquiry into FBI Only (a) Summary of the Parties’ Positions (1) FBI 358.
In its statement of grounds, FBI pleaded that as the PDD and the relevant
correspondence from the DPC to FBI did not indicate that an inquiry had been commenced by the DPC into EU-US data transfers by any other entities within its jurisdiction, it was a breach by the DPC of FBI’s rights to equality and non-discrimination arising from various
