menu MENU
arrow_back Back to the list of all Articles
Change country (Currently : United Kingdom) language
Contact our local member in United Kingdom mail_outline
Visit the website of Moore Blatch account_balance

arrow_backPrevious Article
Article 77
Next Articlearrow_forward

Right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority

Official
Texts Guidelines Caselaw Review of
EU Regulation Review of
Nat. Regulation
Show key term(s) and Article(s) related to article 77 of the Regulation keyboard_arrow_down Hide key term(s) and Article(s) related to article 77 keyboard_arrow_up

Key words related to article 77

Show the recitals of the Regulation related to article 77 keyboard_arrow_down Hide the recitals of the Regulation related to article 77 keyboard_arrow_up

(7) Those developments require a strong and more coherent data protection framework in the Union, backed by strong enforcement, given the importance of creating the trust that will allow the digital economy to develop across the internal market. Natural persons should have control of their own personal data. Legal and practical certainty for natural persons, economic operators and public authorities should be enhanced.

(141) Every data subject should have the right to lodge a complaint with a single supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, and the right to an effective judicial remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter if the data subject considers that his or her rights under this Regulation are infringed or where the supervisory authority does not act on a complaint, partially or wholly rejects or dismisses a complaint or does not act where such action is necessary to protect the rights of the data subject. The investigation following a complaint should be carried out, subject to judicial review, to the extent that is appropriate in the specific case. The supervisory authority should inform the data subject of the progress and the outcome of the complaint within a reasonable period. If the case requires further investigation or coordination with another supervisory authority, intermediate information should be given to the data subject. In order to facilitate the submission of complaints, each supervisory authority should take measures such as providing a complaint submission form which can also be completed electronically, without excluding other means of communication.

(142) Where a data subject considers that his or her rights under this Regulation are infringed, he or she should have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which is constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest and is active in the field of the protection of personal data to lodge a complaint on his or her behalf with a supervisory authority, exercise the right to a judicial remedy on behalf of data subjects or, if provided for in Member State law, exercise the right to receive compensation on behalf of data subjects. A Member State may provide for such a body, organisation or association to have the right to lodge a complaint in that Member State, independently of a data subject's mandate, and the right to an effective judicial remedy where it has reasons to consider that the rights of a data subject have been infringed as a result of the processing of personal data which infringes this Regulation. That body, organisation or association may not be allowed to claim compensation on a data subject's behalf independently of the data subject's mandate.

(143) Any natural or legal person has the right to bring an action for annulment of decisions of the Board before the Court of Justice under the conditions provided for in Article 263 TFEU. As addressees of such decisions, the supervisory authorities concerned which wish to challenge them have to bring action within two months of being notified of them, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU. Where decisions of the Board are of direct and individual concern to a controller, processor or complainant, the latter may bring an action for annulment against those decisions within two months of their publication on the website of the Board, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU. Without prejudice to this right under Article 263 TFEU, each natural or legal person should have an effective judicial remedy before the competent national court against a decision of a supervisory authority which produces legal effects concerning that person. Such a decision concerns in particular the exercise of investigative, corrective and authorisation powers by the supervisory authority or the dismissal or rejection of complaints. However, the right to an effective judicial remedy does not encompass measures taken by supervisory authorities which are not legally binding, such as opinions issued by or advice provided by the supervisory authority. Proceedings against a supervisory authority should be brought before the courts of the Member State where the supervisory authority is established and should be conducted in accordance with that Member State's procedural law. Those courts should exercise full jurisdiction, which should include jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before them.

Where a complaint has been rejected or dismissed by a supervisory authority, the complainant may bring proceedings before the courts in the same Member State. In the context of judicial remedies relating to the application of this Regulation, national courts which consider a decision on the question necessary to enable them to give judgment, may, or in the case provided for in Article 267 TFEU, must, request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Union law, including this Regulation. Furthermore, where a decision of a supervisory authority implementing a decision of the Board is challenged before a national court and the validity of the decision of the Board is at issue, that national court does not have the power to declare the Board's decision invalid but must refer the question of validity to the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 267 TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice, where it considers the decision invalid. However, a national court may not refer a question on the validity of the decision of the Board at the request of a natural or legal person which had the opportunity to bring an action for annulment of that decision, in particular if it was directly and individually concerned by that decision, but had not done so within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

(144) Where a court seized of proceedings against a decision by a supervisory authority has reason to believe that proceedings concerning the same processing, such as the same subject matter as regards processing by the same controller or processor, or the same cause of action, are brought before a competent court in another Member State, it should contact that court in order to confirm the existence of such related proceedings. If related proceedings are pending before a court in another Member State, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings or may, on request of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seized if that court has jurisdiction over the proceedings in question and its law permits the consolidation of such related proceedings. Proceedings are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.

(145) For proceedings against a controller or processor, the plaintiff should have the choice to bring the action before the courts of the Member States where the controller or processor has an establishment or where the data subject resides, unless the controller is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers.

There is no recital in the Directive related to article 77.

The GDPR

Like the Directive, Article 77 of the Regulation enables any person concerned by data processing to lodge a complaint with a supervising authority if the data subject considers that the processing of personal data relating to him or her infringes this Regulation. Any infringement of the Regulation may therefore justify such a complaint.

In its first draft, the second paragraph of Article 77 specified also the organizations entitled to lodge a complaint on behalf of the data subject, even irrespective of any claim of the data subject, in case of personal data breach. However, this element was not retained in the final version of the text. 

Which supervisory authority a data subject may report to for determination is not strictly specified. According to paragraph 1, data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority competent of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement.

The supervisory authority receiving the lodged complaint  shall inform the complainant on the progress and the outcome of the complaint including the possibility of a judicial remedy pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation (paragraph 2).

The Directive

The Directive already required Member States to implement a procedure for lodging a complaint with the supervisory authority. Thus any person or an association representing that person may lodge a complaint concerning the protection of his or her rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data. This may in particular consist of a request for verification of the lawfulness of processing. Pursuant to Article 28 (4), the person concerned shall be informed of the outcome of the claim or that a check has taken place.

Potential issues

In countries where the authority had no decision-making power, an increase in complaints may be expected, as this situation will lead to a decision likely to be appealed. The problem is then to determine what will be the procedure before the national authority which should not be overly complicated and/or costly as this may discourage the data subject from pursuing a complaint.

arrow_back Previous Article • Article 77 • Next Article arrow_forward
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 77 Next Article arrow_forward
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 77 Next Article arrow_forward

Summary

European Union

European Union

CJEU caselaw

C‑132/21 (12 January 2023), Budapesti Elektromos Művek

Article 77(1), Article 78(1) and Article 79(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as permitting the remedies provided for in Article 77(1) and Article 78(1) of that regulation, on the one hand, and Article 79(1) thereof, on the other, to be exercised concurrently with and independently of each other. It is for the Member States, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to lay down detailed rules as regards the relationship between those remedies in order to ensure the effective protection of the rights guaranteed by that regulation and the consistent and homogeneous application of its provisions, as well as the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal as referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Decision of the court

Opinion of the advocate General

C-33/22 (16 January 2024) - Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde

1.      The first sentence of Article 16(2) TFEU and Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

must be interpreted as meaning that an activity cannot be regarded as being outside the scope of Union law and therefore falling outside the scope of that regulation for the sole reason that it is carried out by a committee of inquiry set up by the parliament of a Member State in the exercise of its power of scrutiny over the executive.

2.      Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation 2016/679, read in the light of recital 16 of that regulation,

must be interpreted as meaning that the activities of a committee of inquiry set up by the parliament of a Member State in the exercise of its power of scrutiny over the executive, the purpose of which is to investigate the activities of a police State-protection authority on account of a suspicion of political influence over that authority, cannot, as such, be regarded as activities concerning national security which fall outside the scope of Union law, within the meaning of that provision.

3.      Article 77(1) and Article 55(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has chosen, in accordance with Article 51(1) of that regulation, to establish a single supervisory authority, without, however, conferring on it the competence to monitor the application of that regulation by a committee of inquiry set up by that Member State’s parliament in the exercise of its power of scrutiny over the executive, those provisions directly confer on that authority the competence to hear complaints relating to the processing of personal data by that committee of inquiry.

Judgment of the Court

Opinion of Advocate general

C-768/21 (26 September 2024) - Land Hessen 

Article 57(1)(a) and (f), Article 58(2) and Article 77(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that when a breach of personal data has been established, the supervisory authority is not required to exercise a corrective power, in particular the power to impose an administrative fine, under that Article 58(2) where such action is not appropriate, necessary or proportionate to remedy the shortcoming found and to ensure that that regulation is fully enforced.

Opinion of Advocate General 

Judgment of the Court

 C-169/23 (28 November 2024) - Másdi

1.      Article 14(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the controller’s obligation to provide information to the data subject, laid down in that provision, concerns all personal data, without distinction, that have not been collected by the controller directly from the data subject, whether those data have been obtained by the controller from a person other than the data subject or whether they have been generated by the controller itself, in the performance of its tasks.

2.      Article 14(5)(c) and Article 77(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that, in a complaint procedure, the supervisory authority is competent to verify whether the Member State law to which the controller is subject provides appropriate measures to protect the data subject’s legitimate interests, for the purposes of the application of the exception laid down in Article 14(5)(c). That verification does not however cover the appropriateness of the measures which the controller is required to implement, under Article 32 of that regulation, in order to guarantee the security of processing of personal data.

Judgment of the Court 
Opinion of Advocate General 

 

Retour au sommaire Retour au sommaire
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 77 Next Article arrow_forward
Regulation
1e 2e

Art. 77

1.   Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement if the data subject considers that the processing of personal data relating to him or her infringes this Regulation.

2.   The supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall inform the complainant on the progress and the outcome of the complaint including the possibility of a judicial remedy pursuant to Article 78.
1st proposal close

Art. 73 

1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in any Member State if they consider that the processing of personal data relating to them does not comply with this Regulation.

2. Any body, organisation or association which aims to protect data subjects’ rights and interests concerning the protection of their personal data and has been properly constituted according to the law of a Member State shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in any Member State on behalf of one or more data subjects if it considers that a data subject’s rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of personal data.

3. Independently of a data subject's complaint, any body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 2 shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in any Member State, if it considers that a personal data breach has occurred.
2nd proposal close

Art. 73

1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a single supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement, if the data subject considers that the processing of personal data relating to him or her does not comply with this Regulation.

2. (…)

3. (…)

4. (…)

5. The supervisory authority to which the complaint has been lodged shall inform the complainant on the progress and the outcome of the complaint including the possibility of a judicial remedy pursuant to Article 74 (…).
Directive close

Art. 28

(…)

4. Each supervisory authority shall hear claims lodged by any person, or by an association representing that person, concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data. The person concerned shall be informed of the outcome of the claim.

Each supervisory authority shall, in particular, hear claims for checks on the lawfulness of data processing lodged by any person when the national provisions adopted pursuant to Article 13 of this Directive apply. The person shall at any rate be informed that a check has taken place.
United Kingdom
compare_arrows

42. Request for assessment

(1) A request may be made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of any person who is, or believes himself to be, directly affected by any processing of personal data for an assessment as to whether it is likely or unlikely that the processing has been or is being carried out in compliance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) On receiving a request under this section, the Commissioner shall make an assessment in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate, unless he has not been supplied with such information as he may reasonably require in order to—

(a) satisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request, and

(b) enable him to identify the processing in question.

(3) The matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in determining in what manner it is appropriate to make an assessment include—

(a) the extent to which the request appears to him to raise a matter of substance,

(b) any undue delay in making the request, and

(c) whether or not the person making the request is entitled to make an application under section 7 in respect of the personal data in question.

(4) Where the Commissioner has received a request under this section he shall notify the person who made the request—

(a) whether he has made an assessment as a result of the request, and

(b to the extent that he considers appropriate, having regard in particular to any exemption from section 7 applying in relation to the personal data concerned, of any view formed or action taken as a result of the request. 
Belgique close

Art. 31

§ 1er. Sans préjudice de toute action devant les tribunaux et sauf si la loi en dispose autrement, la Commission examine les plaintes signées et dates qui lui sont adressées. Ces plaintes peuvent avoir trait à sa mission de protection de la vie privée à l'égard des traitements de données à caractère personnel ou à d'autres missions qui lui sont confiées par la loi

§ 2. La procédure est réglée par le règlement d'ordre intérieur. Celui-ci prévoit l'exercice d'un droit de défense.

§ 3. La Commission examine la recevabilité de la plainte. Si la plainte est recevable, la Commission accomplit toute mission de médiation qu'elle juge utile. En cas de conciliation des parties, fondée sur le respect de la vie privée, elle dresse un procès-verbal dans lequel la solution retenue est explicitée. En l'absence de conciliation, la Commission émet un avis sur la caractère fondé de la plainte. Son avis peut être accompagné de recommandations à l'intention du (responsable du traitement).

§ 4. Les décisions, avis et recommandations de la Commission sont motivés.

§ 5. La Commission communique sa décision, son avis ou ses recommandations au plaignant, au (responsable du traitement) et à toutes les autres parties à la cause.

Une copie de la décision, de l'avis des recommandations est adressée au Ministre de la Justice.
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 77 Next Article arrow_forward
close

2016 - www.itiplaw.eu.