Effective procedure – no deadline for deciding on the admissibility of a complaint
Article(s) involved (national, EU, or other): Article 77, 80 GDPR
Problem
Some SAs do not confirm within a reasonable time whether the complaint filed by an not-for-profit organisation under Article 80 GDPR is admissible.
For example, some SAs inform the complainant/his or her representative more than one year after the complaint has been filed that (i) some formal or substantial requirements are not met, (ii) that the alleged violation has stopped, (iii) that the representation agreement is not valid or (iv) that they do not consider themselves competent.
Ideal Solution
The drat regulation should specify that the SA should immediatelyacknowledge receipt of the complaint, and must render a decision on the admissibility of the complaint within a period of maximum 3 months.
Proposed Solution
Concepts 9, 10, 14 and 16 should solve these issues.
Reference to specific noyb cases:
Case Apollo and Rocket Reach: the Lux SA has questioned the right of noyb to represent the complainant and file an appeal before the court.
See also noyb cookies complaints: C-037-10028; C-037-10319; C-037-10445; C-037-10517; C-037-10753; C-037-11008; C-037-11143; C-037-11200; C-037-11432; C-037-12140; C-037-602; C-037-224; C-037-312; C-037-208; C-037-213; C-037-106; C-037-306; C-037-210 where the SA took 11 months to adopt a statement on the admissibility of the complaints.
The Polish SA in the cookie banners complaints reacted to the first batch of the complaints (Aug 2021) within two weeks and has not reacted at all to the second batch (Aug 2022) yet (over two months down the line). The IT SA has not confirmed the receipt of the cookie banners complaints at all yet (over 1 year). The other SAs, such as e.g. Norway, Belgium take a random amount of time (usually a few months) to confirm the admission of complaints (“cookie banners” project).
