[ad_1]
The Data Protection Commissioner has been ordered to pay most of the substantial costs of long-term litigation in the State and in Europe in relation to the validity of decisions approving the EU-US data transfer channels. Used by Facebook Ireland for data transfers to its US parent.
Judge Caroline Costello pointed out that the EU Court of Justice, in its ruling last July on the matters referred to it by the High Court on the application of the CPS, confirmed the data rights and the reasons of the privacy activist Max Schrems to object to that reference.
For these and other reasons, it would amount to a “grave injustice” not to award him the full costs, against the DPC, of the litigation before the Irish courts and the CJEU, he said.
The Commissioner and Facebook are each responsible for their own costs of the litigation, it ruled.
She was “well aware” that her decision would impose a very heavy financial burden on DPC, who started the process in compliance with its obligations under EU and national law.
Although the DPC acted completely correctly, his office must bear most of the costs of this application, the judge said. This was an “unavoidable incident” in your role and the outcome should not affect the future operation of the DPC office.
The judge issued the orders in a judgment Friday on cost issues stemming from the Commissioner’s litigation, the ultimate goal of which was to obtain a reference to the CJEU to decide questions regarding the validity of the EC decisions approving Facebook’s use of the data transfer channels known as Standard Contractual Clauses (CEC).
Several years before the DPC began its litigation, Mr. Schrems had initiated legal actions against his office for the lack of resolution of his complaint, initially made in 2013 and reformulated in 2015, that the transfers violated his privacy rights of data.
She argued that it was not necessary to make a reference to the CJEU, insisting that there was enough information before the Commissioner for her to decide her complaint without any reference.
CJEU
In her High Court ruling on the Commissioner’s procedure in October 2017, Judge Costello agreed to make a reference to the CJEU.
In July 2020, the CJEU found that there are insufficient protections against espionage by US intelligence agencies, and EU data protection authorities should examine the submission of any new data to ensure that the personal information of individuals remains protected in accordance with the EU data protection regime, the RGPD.
At a hearing earlier this month on liability for the costs of the proceedings, the Commissioner claimed her costs against Facebook Ireland, while Mr Schrems claimed her costs against the Commissioner.
Facebook did not request any costs orders in his favor, neither against the Commissioner nor against Mr Schrems, but it did object to the issuance of costs orders against him.
In a detailed trial, the judge concluded that the DPC should pay most of the costs of this “most unusual” case.
The normal order of costs is that the costs follow the “event” – result – and the judge did not agree with the DPC that obtaining a reference was the “event”.
She accepted Mr. Schrems’s arguments that he was successful before the CJEU on each of the points in the case where his position was different from that of the DPC and therefore must be considered successful at the event.
It rejected the arguments that the Commissioner was entitled to a “change order” against Facebook Ireland in relation to the costs of Mr Schrems.
While the DPC argued that the essential dispute was between Facebook and Mr. Schrems, the DPC initiated the procedure by requesting a reference to the CJEU on the grounds that they were necessary for it to advance its investigation into Mr. Schrems’s complaint and , therefore, it cannot be considered as a mediator without an independent role in this drama ”.
The Commissioner has an essential function mandated by EU law and cannot avoid the implications of that role by saying that the dispute was between the data subject and the data processor, he said.
While the DPC’s lawyers described Facebook’s approach to the litigation as “war,” their case did not justify an award of costs in favor of the DPC against Facebook, it said.
However, Facebook should bear the costs incurred by the DPC and Mr. Schrems from three days of a four-day hearing after the court’s ruling on the DPC proceedings was issued, he said. Those three days focused on an offer from Facebook to correct alleged “errors” in her trial, which she rejected.
[ad_2]