51 between the DPC and Mr. Schrems, to which FBI was not a party, I was informed that FBI was not inviting me to decide this point and that it was reserving its rights in relation to it. As requested by Mr. Schrems and the DPC, I adjourned Mr. Schrems’ proceedings for mention to the date of the delivery of judgment in FBI’s proceedings. 11. Structure for Consideration of the Issues Raised 107.
Having reviewed the pleadings, affidavits and submissions (both written and oral), the
issues which I must decide on this application are as follows:(1)
I must first consider the preliminary issue as to whether the DPC’s decision to issue the PDD and the procedures which the DPC has decided to adopt in respect of the inquiry are amendable to judicial review. On the basis that I conclude that the DPC’s decision to issue the PDD and to adopt the procedures set out in it and communicated in correspondence to FBI are amenable to judicial review, I must then consider the further issues set out below (or at least most of them).
(2)
Whether the DPC failed to carry out an investigation/inquiry prior to reaching a decision in breach of the 2018 Act, the GDPR and the judgment of the CJEU in Schrems II.
(3)
Whether the PDD and the procedure to be adopted by the DPC is a departure from the DPC’s published procedures in breach of FBI’s legitimate expectations.
(4)
Whether the DPC has breached FBI’s right to fair procedures in the inquiry by affording FBI a period of three weeks (21 days) to provide its submissions to the DPC.
(5)
Whether the DPC has breached FBI’s right to fair procedures by reaching a premature judgment on the matters the subject of the inquiry.
