Teikėjai, kurie savo tekste tiesiogiai nurodė būtent šį straipsnio numerį. Tai citata iš jų pačių teksto — ne mūsų vertinimas ir ne priežastinis ryšys.
| Kas | Šalis | Ką parašė |
|---|---|---|
| ANITEC-ASSINFORM | IT | seek to clarify the application of the dispute resolution procedure under Article 65(1)(a) GDPR. The major gaps in the Guidelines are around the role of the EDPB. Specifically: o (i) a controller/processor’s right to be heard before the EDPB. ↗ |
| Bitkom e.V. | DE | imposition of a fine (or another sanction) or give instructions to the LSA relating to the amount of the fine – which we believe Article 65 does not cover –, the right to be heard must include an oral hearing as well as with written submissions. ↗ |
| ITI - Information Technology Industry Council | US | tatements which would be made available to the complainant (Article 21, paragraph 6). 4 As the dispute resolution procedure under Article 65 of the GDPR leads to a binding EDPB decision, the proposed Regulation should clarify the fundamental nature of this pro ↗ |
| Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL) | BE | e Centre for Information Policy Leadership on the European Data Protection Board’s Draft Guidelines 03/2021 on the application of Article 65(1)(a) GDPR (https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/cipl_comments_on_edpb_article_65_ draft_gu ↗ |
| DIGITALEUROPE | BE | procedure could result in an increase in dispute resolution requests. Instead, the final text should reflect that Art. 65 GDPR dispute resolution procedures aim to resolve disputes between DPAs, rather than to direct the LSA’s fact-finding investigations and s ↗ |
| EuroCommerce | BE | ght to be heard should also be granted by the EDPB in the situations that the EDPB intervenes to resolve disputes between DPAs ex article 65 GDPR. This is specifically important because there is no opportunity to comment on the LDPAs final draft decision befor ↗ |
| AmCham Slovenija | SI | osition adopted by the party under investigation. The party under investigation’s right to be heard directly by the EDPB in the Article 65 GDPR proceedings should take place before the EDPB adopts its decision. ↗ |
| Ecommerce Europe | BE | Article 65 (GDPR) process, and we find it incomprehensible why the EDPB would seek to impose such deadlines on the SAs. Finally, if concerns persist about the ability of the SAs to progress investigations in a timely manner, while simultaneously ensuring due j ↗ |
| DOT Europe | BE | d, and concerned SAs already actively work together with the Lead SA towards OSS decisions. If the use of this dispute mechanism (Article 65) is not limited to exceptional cases only, we believe that the lead SA principle will be undermined and cooperation bet ↗ |
| Asociación Española de Economía Digital (Adigital) | ES | fixed deadlines imposed by the Article 65 process and queries why it would seek to impose such deadlines on the SAs. ● We further submit that the imposition of arbitrary procedural deadlines will result in rushed decisions and, as such, is likely to result in ↗ |
| CEDPO - European Confederation of Data Protection Organisations. | BE | sues relating to data processing activities. As a consequence, the DPO should be involved by the supervisory authority and, where article 65 GDPR is triggered, by the EDPB, at every step of an enforcement procedure relating to a data processing activity where ↗ |
| American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmCham EU) | BE | mining whether the CSA’s objections are relevant and reasonable. If so, the board resolves any relevant dispute between the CSAs (Article 65(1)(a)). IV. Clarifying the position of complainants in the procedural steps According to the EDPB, clarifying the posit ↗ |
| noyb | AT | Regulation. 66 This ensures that if a CSA insists, there has to be a decision under Article 60(3) GDPR which can then lead to an Article 65 GDPR procedure. 67 Could be developed from existing enforcement sub group, but with permanent members that deal with pr ↗ |
| DIGITALEUROPE | BE | lines 02/2022. 4 hearings to inform the decision-making process, they should also be part of dispute-resolution proceedings under Art. 65. ↗ |
| Polish Confederation Lewiatan | PL | osition adopted by the party under investigation. • The party under investigation’s right to be heard directly by the EDPB in the Article 65 GDPR proceedings should take place before the EDPB adopts its decision. ↗ |
| American Chamber of Commerce in Poland | PL | osition adopted by the party under investigation. • The party under investigation’s right to be heard directly by the EDPB in the Article 65 GDPR proceedings should take place before the EDPB adopts its decision. ↗ |
| ITI - Information Technology Industry Council | US | e a last resort. • Businesses of all sizes would benefit from a fair, transparent, and consistent application of the GDPR. Recent Article 65 enforcement decisions show that national Supervisory Authorities (‘SAs’) within the EU differ on the interpretation of ↗ |
| Związek Pracodawców Branży Internetowej IAB Polska | PL | ony postępowania wysłuchania przez EROD w postępowaniach transgranicznych dotyczących wydania wiążących decyzji, o których mowa w art. 65 RODO, powinno mieć miejsce przed przyjęciem takiej decyzji przez Radę. W praktyce oznacza to, że strona postępowania powin ↗ |
| Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL) | BE | sion after relevant and reasoned objections were sent and adopting a final decision after consensus was reached or triggering the Article 65 GDPR procedure. CIPL can appreciate that the introduction of specific deadlines in cross-border cases may support a tim ↗ |
| European Digital Rights (EDRi) | BE | Tel. +32 2 274 25 70 | www.edri.org informed about the sending of the case to the EDPB.14 Right for the complainant to trigger Article 65(1)(b) GDPR In some cases where the SAs take longer than a “reasonable time” to determine which SA is the LSA, the compl ↗ |
| CCIA - Computer & Communications Industry Association | BE | st be subject to judicial oversight Controllers and processors must have a right to appeal an EDPB binding decision following the Article 65 GDPR dispute resolution procedure. ↗ |
| Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW) e.V. | DE | ntlich könnte darüber noch zusätzlich mehr Einheitlichkeit gewährleistet werden. Das sogenannte Streitbeilegungsverfahren, das in Art. 65 der DSGVO geregelt ist, sieht vor, dass der Europäische Datenschutzausschuss in bestimmten Fällen einen Beschluss fassen k ↗ |
| Access Now Europe | FR | er of objections raised by CSAs at the draft decision stage and limit the use of the dispute resolution mechanisms foreseen under Article 65 of the GDPR. Measure for cross-border complaint handling and resolutions: The Regulation shall establish the following ↗ |
| ACT | The App Association | BE | involved because of a cross-border scenario, they do not always reach a consensus. While the GDPR’s dispute resolution mechanism (Article 65) accounts for those situations, we agree with the Commission that clarifying existing steps and spelling out additional ↗ |
| David BARNARD-WILLS | GB | sessions or published minutes) need to be introduced in order to deal with cases where such an event may be anticipated (e.g. in Article 65 GDPR). 5.5 Explicitly address the right of appeal Given the court-like nature of the consistency mechanism, an explicit ↗ |
| Europäische Akademie für Informationsfreiheit und Datenschutz e.V. | DE | aume Zeit verstrichen ist, bevor der Europäische Datenschutzausschuss Ende 2022 erstmals konsequent von seinen Möglichkeiten nach Art. 65 Abs. 2 Gebrauch gemacht hat. Allerdings ist es richtig, bereits jetzt (vor der anstehenden nächsten Evaluation) bestimmte ↗ |
Šaltinis: viešų konsultacijų atsiliepimai ir pozicijų dokumentai. n = 26 paminėjimų; skaičiuojama pažodinė nuoroda į straipsnio numerį.