OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Open Rights Group

ORG

As society goes digital we wish to preserve its openness.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation

29 Apr 2020

Open Rights Group, Panpotykon Foundation and The Civil Liberties Union for Europe are Civil Society Organisations, active in the field of digital rights. Over the past two years, we have gathered first-hand experience on the functioning of the consistency mechanism set forth by chapter VII of the GDPR. In particular, by lodging or otherwise supporting a total of 21 complaints over the use of personal data by the online advertisement industry, we encountered a number of issues in how the One-Stop-Shop mechanism works at present. Effective enforcement of individual rights to data protection is a fundamental driver for public trust within an increasingly data driven economy and the single market. However, in our experience cross border complaints are not effectively tracked or resolved: we believe the root cause is to be found in the way the One-Stop-Shop mechanisms was implemented, in particular as Supervisory Authorities lack the means and encouragement to take an active stance in the resolution and enforcement of complaints. In our opinion, such shortcomings can be tackled without resorting to legislative changes, but rather by implementing appropriate guidelines and procedures which can allow Supervisory Authorities to effectively work together in all stages of the complaint. We also find Supervisory Authorities to be ill-equipped to meet their new tasks, and assert enforcement decisions against well-resourced technology companies: we therefore call on Member States to provide proper financial means to their national Supervisory Authorities, and on the European Commission to ensure that Member States meet their obligations under Article 52(4) of the GDPR. More in details, our experience highlighted: – A substantially passive attitude of the Supervisory Authorities in the handling of complaints; – Divergent and conflicting standards over the admissibility of complaints; – Lack of information concerning the progress of complaints to the complainants; and – Long duration of the proceedings. A FULL REPORT OF OUR FINDINGS IS ATTACHED TO THIS SUBMISSION.
Read full response