On July 9, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) adopted Opinion 8/2019 on the Competence of a Supervisory Authority in Case of a Change in Circumstances Relating to the Main or Single Establishment (the “Opinion”) at the request of the French and the Swedish data protection authorities (“DPAs”).
Background – The French and Swedish DPAs’ Initial Request
The French and Swedish DPAs requested that the EDPB examine and issue an Opinion on the following questions: When is the competence of a supervisory authority (“SA”) fixed, rendering subsequent changes in circumstances without effect on its competence and procedure? Should this moment be (1) the initial moment where the complaint is received or, if there is no complaint, when the authority starts looking at the matter; (2) when the authority decides to investigate and contact the controller/processor; (3) when the decision-making procedure is launched; (4) or when the authority renders its decision?
Change of Circumstances Relating to the Main or Single Establishment
A change of circumstances relating to the main or single establishment may occur when the single or main establishment is (1) relocated from an EEA country to another EEA country; (2) moved from or ceases to exist in an EEA country; (3) relocated from a non-EEA country to an EEA country or is set up in an EEA country. In light of this, the EDPB established that to be in one of the above situations, the infringements must be either continuous (i.e., one event consisting of several infringing acts) or of a continuing nature (i.e., that last over a certain period of time).
The EDPB also stresses that a change of circumstances must be effective and proven by the controller. The relocation/creation of the main or single establishment in an EEA country must be more than a bureaucratic step, it must be a change with a lasting purpose.
Article 56 (1) of the GDPR – Lex Specialis
Article 56 (1) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) provides that the SA “of the main establishment or of the single establishment of the controller or processor shall be competent to act as [lead SA] for the cross-border processing carried out by that controller or processor.” In light of this, if the main or single establishment of the controller or processor is relocated once a proceeding has been initiated, the SA of the new main or single establishment will be considered as the lead SA if it meets all the requirements. In such case, the controller or processor will benefit from the one-stop-shop mechanism. In any event, the competence of a new SA as lead SA does not mean that the initial SA was not rightfully competent at the time. Hence, the acts taken by the initial SA will remain valid. In the event of a change of lead SA, the initial lead SA and the new lead SA will have an obligation to cooperate according to article 60 of the GDPR.
The Adopted Opinion
The EDPB considers that a change of lead SA can take place before a final decision has been adopted by the initial lead SA, if documented changes in relation to the main or single establishment of the controller or processor occur.
Situation 1: Relocation of another EEA country
- The relocation mid-procedure of the main establishment to another EEA country deprives the first SA of its original competence at the moment where the relocation effectively takes place. The relocation does not retrospectively affect the decisions and actions taken by the first SA.
- If a proceeding is pending, it will be transferred to the new lead SA where the new establishment is located.
- The first SA will be under the obligation to cooperate with the newly appointed lead SA.
Situation 2: Creation of the main or single establishment in an EEA country (or relocation from a non-EEA country to an EEA country)
- The competence of the lead SA can be changed before a final decision is adopted by the lead SA.
- Every pending proceeding will be transferred to the SA of the new main or single establishment. That SA will become the lead SA.
- The creation of a main or single establishment in an EEA country or its relocation to an EEA country deprives the first SA of its competence. This will entail an obligation to cooperate between the two SAs.
Situation 3: Disappearance of the main or single establishment in an EEA country
- The disappearance of the main or single establishment in an EEA country will deprive the controller of the one-stop-shop mechanism.
- Since the processing will not be considered to be cross-border any more, the SAs will no longer be subject to the cooperation duty and each SA will regain the full jurisdiction on the matter. The SA where the main or single establishment was initially located will remain competent like any other concerned SAs.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code