Remedy against the competent SA for not informing the complainant regularly
Article(s) involved (national, EU, or other): Articles 77 and 78 GDPR
Article 78(2) is not clear about what can be expected as a judicial remedy when the SA (or the CSA/LSA in the context of the OSS mechanism) is not properly informing the complainant about the course of the procedure. It seems that, in the absence of updates on the status of a complaint, the only thing that a complainant may request the court to do is to order the SA to inform the complainant as per Articles 77(2) and 78(2) GDPR. It is possible that such information will merely contain a notification that no procedural step has (yet) be taken since the last update communicated to the complainant. Therefore, the whole judicial remedy amounts to substantial costs, energy, and time spent to achieve a result that does not really have an impact on the procedure or remedy the inaction of the SA.
The provision should specify what can be asked to the court in the event a data subject is not being updated every three months, e.g. forcing the SA to provide regular substantial updates, and to explain reasons for not providing these updates on time.
Concepts 2, 9 and 14 should limit the need for updates, as the cases should be decided within a reasonable timeline. Updates themselves that only say that the case is under investigation do not seem overly useful. Concept 5 (the EDPB subbody) could be used to enforce requests between SAs.