180 21. Alleged Disproportionality of Simultaneous Inquiries: 386.
FBI originally contended that it was disproportionate for FBI to be subjected to two
simultaneous inquiries in relation to substantially the same subject matter, namely, the DPC’s own volition inquiry and its ongoing consideration of Mr. Schrems’ reformulated complaint. While raised as an issue in these proceedings in respect of which specific grounds were pleaded in the statement of grounds and addressed in Ms. Cunnane’s first affidavit of 10th September, 2020, FBI took the position in its written submissions that this issue should be addressed in the context of Mr. Schrems’ proceedings. 387.
The DPC rejected the contention that there was any disproportionality in the approach
taken by the DPC. It did not accept that being subjected to parallel processes, one a complaints-based process and the other an own volition inquiry, in itself, gave rise to any disproportionality. It noted that the GDPR and the 2018 Act envisaged that both forms of inquiry were available to the DPC. However, it was also satisfied to deal with the issue in the context of Mr. Schrems proceedings. 388.
Mr. Schrems did not object to this issue being addressed in the context of his
proceedings. 389.
At the hearing of these proceedings it was agreed that the issue would be left over to
be addressed in Mr. Schrems’ proceedings. However, in the period between the conclusion of the hearing of these proceedings and the date on which Mr. Schrems’ proceedings were due to commence, Mr. Schrems’ proceedings were compromised as between the DPC and Mr. Schrems. FBI was not a party to the arrangements agreed between the DPC and Mr. Schrems. FBI informed me that it was reserving its rights and that it was not asking me to decide this outstanding issue. In the circumstances, I do not propose to address this issue any further.
