Article 77 GDPR
-
Article 77 GDPR: Possession of the Right to Register a Grievance with Competent Authorities
The regulatory authority with which the case was brought should inform the complainant of the complaint's progress and resolution, including the availability of problems through a process under Article 77.
Observation on Article 77 GDPR :
Article 77 GDPR establishes a data subject's right to take legal action with a DPA if they suspect a GDPR infringement involving personal data; the DPA with whom the complaint is filed is required to keep the plaintiff informed of the process and resolution of the complaint. Articles 77(1) and (2) GDPR are immediately applicable and do not need to be translated into national legislation. The specifics of the grievance procedure, on the other hand, are up to Members State law, which must adhere to the GDPR's criteria and goals. This contains the data subject's right to lodge a complaint and handle it by a DPA.
Here we add some descriptions about Possession of the Right to File a Judicial Complaint :
Informally, you can file a complaint with the supervisory authorities. However, according to Article 77(2) GDPR, DPAs must make it easier to file complaints, including using an application portal or other comparable means.
Supervisory authorities must clearly explain their contact choices and employ as many communication methods as feasible as part of their commitment to assist.
The complainant must submit documentation and, if needed, authenticate their identity to validate their right to file a complaint; in theory, the supervising organization is also required to deal with anonymous accusations.
GDPR consultants note that a replica of an Identification card has little probative value because they're straightforward to get or make. In addition, they may be modified or manufactured electronically.
However, identity structure usually on the eIDAS Regulation31 enables simple online identifying across the EU. Therefore, regularly, insisting on disclosing address and phone number, for instance, should never be essential.
Court has the power for the Prosecution's Filing with Article 77 GDPR :
The GDPR requires that the complaint be referred to a supervisory authority (DPA). Only a non-exhaustive list of conceivable DPAs limits this basic rule. This implies that a complainant can register a complaint with just about any DPA in the European Economic Area, regardless of where.
The complainant's home county is the most usual venue for a complaint to be filed. Different EU legislation defines permanent resident status, requiring a legal right of residence and an impartial evaluation of the actual residence.
Particularly in cross-border instances, data subjects may choose to register complaints in their usual residence since this allows them to object to (one of) the relevant Member State's official language rather than the operator's dominant language.
Alleged victims can make a grievance at their place of employment, just as they can at their usual abode. The complaint doesn't need to be related to the workplace.
The claim can be filed at the alleged infringer's location. This clause is a common type of authority that aims to connect the decision maker's location with the place of something like the facts.
GDPR consultants can file a complaint with any DPA doesn't imply that the matter will be decided by the DPA to which it is filed. Articles 55 and 56 of the GDPR govern which DPA handles the matter. In any instance, the DPA with whom the complaint was filed is still an "authority responsible concerned" under Article 4(22)(c) GDPR as well as the data subject's meeting point.
What are the progress and outcomes with Article 77 GDPR?
"The competent authority with whom the complaints have been made should notify the complainant on the status and conclusion of the complaint, including the potential of a judicial remedy according to Article 78," according to Article 77(2) GDPR. However, this clause only applies to the DPA with whom the complaints have been filed, not to the DPA that will eventually handle the case under Articles 55 and 56 of the GDPR.
Article 78(2) GDPR requires the DPA's progress report to contain information on the potential of a judicial remedy.
It should provide information on states' potential through the fourteenth amendment under Article 78(1) GDPR in its final report.
Conclusion :
Thus, if the DPA with whom the complaint has been filed is also authorized to handle the issue under Article 55 GDPR, the DPA must inform the data subject of the complaint's progress or decision within three months of receipt, as required by Article 78(2) GDPR. On the other hand, suppose the DPA with whom the complaint was submitted is not qualified to handle the case (but the leading DPA under Article 56 is). In that case, the DPA with whom the complaint was lodged must inform the user's information under Article 77(2) GDPR.
The first information is generally a reception acknowledgment and notification that the matter has been passed to a (supposed) lead LSA. Despite the lack of a precise deadline for this documentation, the three-month term outlined in Article 78(2) GDPR should be used as a guideline.
As immediately as the lead DPA is constituted, this should communicate the user's information of the progress or resolution of the complaint within three months of receipt, as required by Article 78(2) GDPR. For practical purposes, the data subject is usually informed by the DPA with whom the complaint was filed on behalf of the main DPA.