The GDPR

The objective of the European legislature is to set explicit and consistent rules on mandatory mutual assistance between supervisory authorities and to oversee the penalties in cases of failure to comply with a request from another supervisory authority.

Article 61, paragraph 1 introduces the general principle that the supervisory authorities should share all useful information and help each other to ensure a consistent application of EU rules. Mutual assistance shall cover, in particular, information requests and supervisory measures for instance prior authorizations and consultations, inspections and investigations.

Each supervisory authority shall take all appropriate measures required to reply to a request from another supervisory authority without undue delay and no later than one month after receiving the request (paragraph 2). In order to be eligible, requests for assistance must satisfy paragraph 3, that the requests contain all the necessary information including the purpose of and reasons for the request and that the information exchanged shall be used only for the purpose for which it was requested. 

Paragraph 4 lists exhaustively the only two acceptable reasons for which a national authority may refuse to comply with a request for assistance. It rests on the competence of the authority to handle the subject-matter of the request or the measures it is requested to execute (a); where the request for assistance in incompatible with the Regulation or Union or Member State law to which the supervisory authority receiving the request is subject (b). In the case of refusal, the requested supervisory authority shall provide reasons for their decision (paragraph 5).

The requesting supervisory authority shall be informed of the results or, as the case may be, of the progress of the measures taken in order to respond to the request (paragraph 5).

Article 61 also defines the modes for communication between authorities; in principle the information requested must be delivered by electronic means, using a standard form. It follows in paragraph 7 that supervisory authorities are to provide the mutual assistance free of charge however the parties may agree indemnify each other for specific expenditure but only in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 5). 

Where a supervisory authority does not provide the information within one month of receiving the request, the requesting supervisory authority may adopt a provisional measure in the territory of its Member State in accordance with Article 55. In this scenario, the urgent need to act under Article 66 shall be presumed met and require an urgent binding decision from the European Data Protection Board pursuant to Article 66 (2).

Finally, it should be noted that the Commission may, by means of implementing acts, specify the standardized format and procedures for mutual assistance and the arrangements for the exchange of information by electronic means between supervisory authorities, with the Board and in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93 (2).

The Directive

Under the Directive, the Member States were already required to help each other to fulfil their tasks and ensure full compliance with the data protection rules. So, Article 28 (6) of the Directive provides for the supervisory authorities to mutually cooperate to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties, in particular by exchanging all useful information.

Potential issues

We do not see a priori any specific implementation difficulties.

European Union

CJEU caselaw

C-230/14 (1 october 2015) Weltimmo

1.      Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as permitting the application of the law on the protection of personal data of a Member State other than the Member State in which the controller with respect to the processing of those data is registered, in so far as that controller exercises, through stable arrangements in the territory of that Member State, a real and effective activity — even a minimal one — in the context of which that processing is carried out.

In order to ascertain, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whether that is the case, the referring court may, in particular, take account of the fact (i) that the activity of the controller in respect of that processing, in the context of which that processing takes place, consists of the running of property dealing websites concerning properties situated in the territory of that Member State and written in that Member State’s language and that it is, as a consequence, mainly or entirely directed at that Member State, and (ii) that that controller has a representative in that Member State, who is responsible for recovering the debts resulting from that activity and for representing the controller in the administrative and judicial proceedings relating to the processing of the data concerned.

By contrast, the issue of the nationality of the persons concerned by such data processing is irrelevant.

2.      Where the supervisory authority of a Member State, to which complaints have been submitted in accordance with Article 28(4) of Directive 95/46, reaches the conclusion that the law applicable to the processing of the personal data concerned is not the law of that Member State, but the law of another Member State, Article 28(1), (3) and (6) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that that supervisory authority will be able to exercise the effective powers of intervention conferred on it in accordance with Article 28(3) of that directive only within the territory of its own Member State. Accordingly, it cannot impose penalties on the basis of the law of that Member State on the controller with respect to the processing of those data who is not established in that territory, but should, in accordance with Article 28(6) of that directive, request the supervisory authority within the Member State whose law is applicable to act.

3.      Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘adatfeldolgozás’ (technical manipulation of data), used in the Hungarian version of that directive, in particular in Articles 4(1)(a) and 28(6) thereof, must be understood as having the same meaning as that of the term ‘adatkezelés’ (data processing).

Opinion of Advocate general 

Judgment of the Court

C-645/19 (15 June 2021) - Facebook Ireland Ltd e.a. c. Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit

1) Article 55(1), Articles 56 to 58 and Articles 60 to 66 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 together with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a supervisory authority of a Member State which, under the national legislation adopted in order to transpose Article 58(5) of that regulation, has the power to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where necessary, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, may exercise that power in relation to an instance of cross‑border data processing even though it is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’, within the meaning of Article 56(1) of that regulation, with respect to that data processing, provided that that power is exercised in one of the situations where Regulation 2016/679 confers on that supervisory authority a competence to adopt a decision finding that such processing is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected.

2) Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cross-border data processing, it is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the power of a supervisory authority of a Member State, other than the lead supervisory authority, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, within the meaning of that provision, that the controller or processor with respect to the cross-border processing of personal data against whom such proceedings are brought has a main establishment or another establishment on the territory of that Member State.

3) Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that the power of a supervisory authority of a Member State, other than the lead supervisory authority, to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where appropriate, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, within the meaning of that provision, may be exercised both with respect to the main establishment of the controller which is located in that authority’s own Member State and with respect to another establishment of that controller, provided that the object of the legal proceedings is a processing of data carried out in the context of the activities of that establishment and that that authority is competent to exercise that power, in accordance with the terms of the answer to the first question referred.

4) Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’, within the meaning of Article 56(1) of that regulation, has brought a legal action, the object of which is an instance of cross-border processing of personal data, before 25 May 2018, that is, before the date when that regulation became applicable, that action may, from the perspective of EU law, be continued on the basis of the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which remains applicable in relation to infringements of the rules laid down in that directive committed up to the date when that directive was repealed. That action may, in addition, be brought by that authority with respect to infringements committed after that date, on the basis of Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679, provided that that action is brought in one of the situations where, exceptionally, that regulation confers on a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’ a competence to adopt a decision finding that the processing of data in question is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation with respect to the protection of the rights of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data, and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected, which it is for the referring court to determine.

5) Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision has direct effect, with the result that a national supervisory authority may rely on that provision in order to bring or continue a legal action against private parties, even where that provision has not been specifically implemented in the legislation of the Member State concerned.

Opinion of Advocate General

Judgment of the Court

Retour au sommaire Retour au sommaire