Mervinskiy 406

Page 3

3 1. Introduction 1.

On 16th July, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its

landmark judgment in Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximilian Schrems (commonly now referred to as “Schrems II”) on a reference from the High Court (Costello J.). This case is about what happened after that judgment. 2.

Following the judgment in Schrems II, the Data Protection Commission (“DPC”)

decided to commence an “own volition” inquiry under s. 110 of the Data Protection Act, 2018 (the “2018 Act”) to consider whether the actions of Facebook Ireland Ltd (“FBI”) in making transfers of personal data relating to individuals in the European Union/European Economic Area are lawful and whether any corrective power should be exercised by the DPC in that regard. The DPC decided to commence the inquiry by issuing a “Preliminary Draft Decision” (“PDD”) to FBI on 28th August, 2020. 3.

FBI took issue, on several grounds, with the decision by the DPC to commence the

inquiry by means of the PDD and with the procedures adopted by the DPC. Mr. Schrems, who had made a complaint and a reformulated complaint to the statutory predecessor of the DPC, the Data Protection Commissioner, under the Data Protection Act, 1988 (the “1988 Act”), which had ultimately led to the reference by the High Court to the CJEU leading to the judgment in Schrems II, also took issue with the DPC’s decision and procedures on a number of grounds, some of which overlapped to an extent with the grounds advanced by FBI. 4.

Both FBI and Mr. Schrems brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the PDD

and the procedures adopted by the DPC. Each applied successfully to be joined as a notice party to the other’s judicial review proceedings. Both proceedings were entered in the Commercial List. FBI’s proceedings were heard by me over five days between 15th December and 21st December, 2020, following which they were adjourned to allow further affidavit evidence to be provided by the DPC. Mr. Schrems’ proceedings were due to


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.