181 22. Adequacy of DPC’s Reasons (a) Summary of the Parties’ Positions (1) FBI 390.
One of the reliefs which FBI seeks is a declaration that the DPC did not provide
adequate or sufficient reasons in respect of the commencement of the own volition inquiry in respect of FBI’s EU-US data transfers, the PDD, the inquiry process and the progressing of the inquiry (relief 10 in s. D of the statement of grounds). At para. 81 of the statement of grounds, FBI pleaded that no reasons, or inadequate reasons, were provided by the DPC for a number of decisions of or proposed courses of action by the DPC. Many of the issues referred to in that paragraph overlap with earlier substantive grounds of challenge advanced by the FBI. They include issues such as why the inquiry was commenced while the investigation into Mr. Schrems’ reformulated complaint was ongoing, why the inquiry was commenced into FBI’s transfers only, why the DPC chose not to await guidance from the EDPB, why the procedures published in the 2018 Annual Report were not followed, why FBI was only afforded three weeks for its submissions and why an extension was refused and why the DPC had an undisclosed intention to invoke the Article 60 procedure within three weeks of receipt of FBI’s submissions. 391.
FBI relied on the well-known judgments of the Supreme Court Connelly and Mallak
in support of its case that the DPC’s decision to commence the inquiry and to issue the PDD was not supported by adequate reasons. It also relied on Mallak in support of its contention that the DPC failed adequately to explain the decision making process itself. (2) The DPC 392.
The DPC did not dispute that it was obliged to provide reasons but contended that the
reasons for the DPC’s decision to commence the inquiry were apparent from the PDD and from its letter of 28th August, 2020. It submitted that at no stage did FBI raise any complaint
