The competence of non-lead supervisory authority under the EU GDPR’S one-stop-shop mechanism: CJEU judgment in Facebook and Others (C-645/19)

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Media Law Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI:10.1080/17577632.2022.2109852
Laroussi Chemlali
{"title":"The competence of non-lead supervisory authority under the EU GDPR’S one-stop-shop mechanism: CJEU judgment in Facebook and Others (C-645/19)","authors":"Laroussi Chemlali","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2109852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT On 15 June 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in case C-645/19 between Facebook and the Belgian Data Protection Authority. The CJEU offered some clarification on the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR) one-stop-shop mechanism. In particular, the Court addressed the question of whether a national supervisory authority that is not the lead authority can bring legal proceedings before a court in its Member State with respect to the cross-border data processing. In its judgment, the CJEU reaffirmed the allocation of competences between the ‘lead’ and ‘concerned’ supervisory authorities laid down by the GDPR, while emphasising the importance of sincere and effective cooperation between them, in order to ensure consistent and homogeneous implementation of the GDPR.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2109852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT On 15 June 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in case C-645/19 between Facebook and the Belgian Data Protection Authority. The CJEU offered some clarification on the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR) one-stop-shop mechanism. In particular, the Court addressed the question of whether a national supervisory authority that is not the lead authority can bring legal proceedings before a court in its Member State with respect to the cross-border data processing. In its judgment, the CJEU reaffirmed the allocation of competences between the ‘lead’ and ‘concerned’ supervisory authorities laid down by the GDPR, while emphasising the importance of sincere and effective cooperation between them, in order to ensure consistent and homogeneous implementation of the GDPR.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟GDPR一站式机制下非领导监管机构的权限:欧洲法院对Facebook和其他公司的判决(C-645/19)
2021年6月15日,欧盟法院(CJEU)在Facebook和比利时数据保护局之间的C-645/19案中做出裁决。欧洲法院对《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)的一站式机制进行了一些澄清。特别是,法院处理了一个不是领导机构的国家监管机构是否可以就跨境数据处理向其成员国的法院提起法律诉讼的问题。在其判决中,CJEU重申了GDPR规定的“领导”和“相关”监管机构之间的权限分配,同时强调了他们之间真诚和有效合作的重要性,以确保GDPR的一致和均匀实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Media Law
Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
期刊最新文献
The Bypass Strategy: platforms, the Online Safety Act and future of online speech Freedom of expression after disinformation: Towards a new paradigm for the right to receive information The Digital Services Act’s red line: what the Commission can and cannot do about disinformation The regulation of disinformation: a critical appraisal The EU policy on disinformation: aims and legal basis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1