22 Facebook Inc. on the basis that it was contended that that information fell outside the scope of the Articles of the GDPR relied on in ARQ’s letter. In the final paragraph of the letter, MHC stated that:“As explained in the ‘How do we operate and transfer data as part of our global services?’ section of [FBI’s] Data Policy…, information controlled by [FBI] will be transferred or transmitted to, or stored and processed in, the United States or other countries outside of where your client lives for the purposes described in the data policy. These data transfers are necessary to provide the services set forth in the Facebook terms of service and to globally operate and provide these services. If your client does not want his personal data to be transferred in the context of providing and operating the Facebook service, he can delete his account at any time…” 38.
ARQ replied to MHC on 21st August, 2020 asserting that FBI had not explicitly
specified the precise legal basis and the identity of the recipients and jurisdictions to which FBI sends Mr. Schrems’ personal data. ARQ set out the basis for those assertions and raised some further queries, including a query as to the exact processing operations which it is said were necessary to provide the Facebook service globally. MHC replied on 25th August, 2020 asserting that FBI had already provided Mr. Schrems with all of the information to which he was entitled under the GDPR and that there was no other reason why Mr. Schrems was entitled to more information. 7. DPC’s 28 August 2020 Letter and PDD 39.
It appears that while the DPC was in correspondence with ARQ, on behalf of Mr.
Schrems, after the CJEU judgment in Schrems II, in response to correspondence initiated by Mr. Schrems, there was no correspondence between the DPC and FBI until the DPC’s letter to FBI dated 28th August, 2020 which enclosed the PDD. That is a critical letter which merits close attention in light of the claims advanced in the proceedings by FBI concerning the PDD
