Mervinskiy 406

Page 192

192 being used as a stick to beat the DPC at the hearing. FBI did none of those things. It does not even appear to have pursued the issue in further correspondence. 419.

Having carefully considered the position, I am satisfied that there was no breach by

the DPC of its duty of candour in the defence of these proceedings. I do, however, believe that, acting within the spirit of what the Supreme Court stated in GRA (No. 2), all but one of the questions raised in the MHC letter of 29th October, 2020 should have been answered by the DPC. Its failure to so do, however, did not amount to a breach of the duty of candour. It was open to FBI to take further steps arising from the failure of the DPC to answer the question. Those further steps were not taken. Had the questions been answered and the information been provided, it may well have avoided the need for further affidavits to be exchanged after the hearing. 420.

It follows that I am not satisfied that there was any breach of a duty of candour and

that the failure to provide the information requested does not feed into or contribute in any way to the allegations of pre-judgment or premature judgment or any of the other grounds of challenge advanced by FBI. Nor is it necessary for me to draw any inferences from the failure to provide the information in response to the questions raised as the further affidavits exchanged between the parties after the hearing did yield that further information and I have set out my findings and conclusions arising from that information earlier in this judgment. I will hear further submissions from counsel as to what, if any consequences should follow from the findings and conclusions reached in this section of my judgment. 24. Abuse of Process/Improper Purpose 421.

In its statement of opposition, the DPC pleaded that FBI’s proceedings were an abuse

of process and were issued for an improper purpose (para. 19). The DPC provided particulars of that plea and referred to comments made by Mr. Clegg, Vice President for Global Affairs for Facebook Inc., at a European Business Summit debate/webinar on 22nd September, 2020


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice David Barniville delivered on the 14th day of May Index

1min
page 197

24.Abuse of Process/Improper Purpose

7min
pages 192-195

25.Summary of Conclusions

1min
page 196

22.Adequacy of DPC’s Reasons

5min
pages 181-183

23.Duty of Candour

14min
pages 184-191

21.Alleged Disproportionality of Simultaneous Inquiries

1min
page 180

20.Alleged Discrimination/Breach of FBI’s Right to Equality: Inquiry into FBI Only

23min
pages 167-179

17.Alleged Breach of Fair Procedures: Involvement of Commissioner at Investigation and Decision Making Stages

10min
pages 151-156

16.Alleged Breach of Fair Procedures: Premature Judgment

34min
pages 132-150

15.Alleged Breach of Fair Procedures: 21 Day Period for Submissions

31min
pages 114-131

Expectation

59min
pages 80-113

Decision

19min
pages 69-79

12.Whether PDD/DPC’s Procedure is Amenable to Judicial Review

28min
pages 53-68

11.Structure for Consideration of the Issues Raised

2min
pages 51-52

10.Resolution of Mr. Schrems Proceedings

3min
pages 49-50

Correspondence Post the DPC’s 28 August 2020 Letter and PDD8

19min
pages 35-45

9. Procedural Background

5min
pages 46-48

DPC’s 28 August 2020 Letter and PDD7

22min
pages 22-34

6. Developments Post Judgment in Schrems II

2min
pages 17-18

Relevant Factual Background…………………………………………………4

8min
pages 8-12

Failure to Await Guidance from EDPB and/or Failure to Take Timing of EDPB

5min
pages 19-21

Introduction

5min
pages 3-5

Structure of Judgment………………………………………………………..…….. 3

1min
page 7
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.