[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fpa12fZ0nsjTflFoO8cJshjKYRr8qMC5iK9jl97yh_e0":3},{"article":4,"iocs":41},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":24,"category":25,"article_tags":29},"c7d9f1d1-e92c-429e-8ce1-e1d877436d27","CJEU - C‑414\u002F24 - Datenschutzbehörde (Articulation des recours)","cjeu-c-414-24-datenschutzbehorde-articulation-des-recours-c14492","← Older revision Revision as of 12:51, 19 June 2026 (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) Line 5: Line 5: |Opinion_Link=https:\u002F\u002Fcuria.europa.eu\u002Fjuris\u002Fdocument\u002Fdocument.jsf?text=&docid=303899&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2331821 |Opinion_Link=https:\u002F\u002Fcuria.europa.eu\u002Fjuris\u002Fdocument\u002Fdocument.jsf?text=&docid=303899&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2331821 |Judgement_Link= |Judgement_Link=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002FHTML\u002F?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0414 |Date_Decided=04.09.2025 |Date_Decided=04.09.2025 Line 76: Line 76: === Holding === === Holding === TBD The CJEU examined the two questions together and answered both of them in the negative. The Court held that a supervisory authority may not reject a complaint under [[Article 77 GDPR|Article 77(1) GDPR]] on the sole ground that judicial proceedings concerning the same subject matter have already been brought under [[Article 79 GDPR|Article 79(1) GDPR]]. According to the CJEU, the same applies if the substantive decision given in those proceedings is not yet final. First, the CJEU pointed out that making several remedies available helps guarantee the data subject the right to an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter. The Court referred to its previous case law and stated that [[Article 77 GDPR|Articles 77]], [[Article 78 GDPR|78]], and [[Article 79 GDPR|79 GDPR]] all offer different remedies that must be capable of being exercised without prejudice to the others. As the GDPR does not establish any rule of precedence between these remedies, they may be exercised concurrently with and independently of each other. Second, the CJEU emphasised the objectives of the GDPR and held that the goal of ensuring a high level of protection of the rights of data subjects supported its interpretation of [[Article 77 GDPR|Articles 77]] and [[Article 79 GDPR|79]]. The Court pointed out that the exact relationship between the legal remedies in the Member States depends on national legislation, which has to comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Third, the CJEU took into account that the possibility to reject the complaint due to ongoing judicial proceedings would help to avoid adopting contradictory decisions in the same case and thus strengthen legal certainty. However, such a relationship between the remedies would lead to the data subject being deprived of any effective protection where their judicial proceedings are dismissed on procedural grounds without a decision being given on the merits. Allowing the rejection of the complaint would therefore be contrary to the principle of effectiveness. Against this background, the CJEU referred to the possibility of the Member States to envisage a suspension mechanism as suggested by the Advocate General in his opinion. Under such a mechanism, the supervisory authority handling the complaint could suspend the proceedings until a court decision definitively closes the dispute in question. == Comment == == Comment ==","The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that a supervisory authority cannot reject a complaint under Article 77(1) of the GDPR solely because judicial proceedings on the same matter are already underway, even if a decision has not yet been finalized. The court emphasized that GDPR provides multiple, independent remedies for data subjects, and these should be exercisable concurrently without prejudice to each other, ensuring effective protection.","CJEU rules supervisory authorities cannot reject GDPR complaints due to ongoing judicial proceedings.","Help CJEU - C‑414\u002F24 - Datenschutzbehörde (Articulation des recours): Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 10:33, 7 November 2025 view sourceLde (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators181 editsm ← Older edit Latest revision as of 12:51, 19 June 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators27 editsmTag: Visual edit (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)Line 5: Line 5: |Opinion_Link=https:\u002F\u002Fcuria.europa.eu\u002Fjuris\u002Fdocument\u002Fdocument.jsf?text=&docid=303899&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2331821|Opinion_Link=https:\u002F\u002Fcuria.europa.eu\u002Fjuris\u002Fdocument\u002Fdocument.jsf?text=&docid=303899&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2331821 |Judgement_Link=|Judgement_Link=https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002FHTML\u002F?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0414 |Date_Decided=04.09.2025|Date_Decided=04.09.2025 Line 76: Line 76: === Holding ====== Holding === TBDThe CJEU examined the two questions together and answered both of them in the negative. The Court held that a supervisory authority may not reject a complaint under [[Article 77 GDPR|Article 77(1) GDPR]] on the sole ground that judicial proceedings concerning the same subject matter have already been brought under [[Article 79 GDPR|Article 79(1) GDPR]]. According to the CJEU, the same applies if the substantive decision given in those proceedings is not yet final. First, the CJEU pointed out that making several remedies available helps guarantee the data subject the right to an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter. The Court referred to its previous case law and stated that [[Article 77 GDPR|Articles 77]], [[Article 78 GDPR|78]], and [[Article 79 GDPR|79 GDPR]] all offer different remedies that must be capable of being exercised without prejudice to the others. As the GDPR does not establish any rule of precedence between these remedies, they may be exercised concurrently with and independently of each other. Second, the CJEU emphasised the objectives of the GDPR and held that the goal of ensuring a high level of protection of the rights of data subjects supported its interpretation of [[Article 77 GDPR|Articles 77]] and [[Article 79 GDPR|79]]. The Court pointed out that the exact relationship between the legal remedies in the Member States depends on national legislation, which has to comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Third, the CJEU took into account that the possibility to reject the complaint due to ongoing judicial proceedings would help to avoid adopting contradictory decisions in the same case and thus strengthen legal certainty. However, such a relationship between the remedies would lead to the data subject being deprived of any effective protection where their judicial proceedings are dismissed on procedural grounds without a decision being given on the merits. Allowing the rejection of the complaint would therefore be contrary to the principle of effectiveness. Against this background, the CJEU referred to the possibility of the Member States to envisage a suspension mechanism as suggested by the Advocate General in his opinion. Under such a mechanism, the supervisory authority handling the complaint could suspend the proceedings until a court decision definitively closes the dispute in question. == Comment ==== Comment == Latest revision as of 12:51, 19 June 2026 CJEU - C‑414\u002F24 Datenschutzbehörde (Articulation des recours) Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 77(1) GDPR Article 78(1) GDPR Article 79(1) GDPR Decided: 04.09.2025 Parties: Case Number\u002FName: C‑414\u002F24 Datenschutzbehörde (Articulation des recours) European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2025:656 Reference from: VwGH (Austria) Language: 24 EU Languages Original Source: AG OpinionJudgement Initial Contributor: ap The AG opined that the DPA may not reject a complaint solely on the basis that there are pending judicial proceedings on the same subject matter before a court. According to the AG, the DPA must suspend its investigations until the ongoing proceedings are complete. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Advocate General Opinion 1.3 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources English Summary Facts In 2017 (before the GDPR entered into force), a data subject requested an online physician search platform (the controller) to erase their data. The controller refused, and the data subject brought a claim before a civil court. The data subject requested the controller to erase their data again after the GDPR had entered into force. This request was refused, and the data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA. The DPA dismissed the complaint, on the grounds that they had previously brought the same matter before a court. According to the DPA, filing parallel or consecutive claims with a supervisory authority and a court was incompatible with the remedial mechanism under the GDPR. At the time, the civil court had not reached a final decision. The data subject appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, or BVwG), who dismissed the appeal. The BVwG stated that the one-year limitation period under Austrian law had passed, and therefore, the data subject did not have the right to file a complaint with the DPA. The fact that the GDPR had entered into force did not interrupt the limitation period. Both the data subject and the DPA appealed the decision of the Court to the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, or VwGH). The VwGH disagreed with the reasoning of the BVwG; the limitation period only started after the controller rejected the data subject’s second erasure request, after the GDPR had entered into force. The VwGH stayed proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The question was based on the Case C-132\u002F21, in which the CJEU held that the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority (Articles 77(1) and 78(1) GDPR) may be exercised independently from the right to a judicial remedy against a controller or processor (Article 79(1) GDPR). The VwGH requested the CJEU to clarify the relationship between the remedies, and specifically, whether a DPA can reject a complaint on the grounds that the data subject has initiated judicial proceedings on the same subject. The Court referred the following questions: 1. Are Articles 77 and 79 of [the GDPR] to be interpreted, in the light of the findings of the Court in the judgments [in Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság] and [SCHUFA Holding], as meaning that the possibility provided by national law for the rejection of a complaint lodged with a supervisory authority under Article 77 of the GDPR on the ground that a judicial remedy has already been sought in the same case under Article 79 of the GDPR and that the action is pending before the court [in question] constitutes a permissible arrangement for regulating the relationship between those remedies within the meaning of the abovementioned case-law of the Court? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 77 and 79 of [the GDPR] to be interpreted, in the light of the findings of the Court in the judgments [in Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság] and [SCHUFA Holding], as meaning that the possibility provided by national law for the rejection of a complaint lodged with a supervisory authority under Article 77 of the GDPR on the ground that a substantive judgment (even if not yet final) has already been made in the pending proceedings in the same case on the judicial remedy under Article 79 of the GDPR constitutes a permissible arrangement for regulating the relationship between those remedies within the meaning of the abovementioned case-law of the Court?’ Advocate General Opinion AG De l","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=CJEU_-_C%E2%80%91414\u002F24_-_Datenschutzbeh%C3%B6rde_(Articulation_des_recours)&diff=51924&oldid=49857","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F8\u002F87\u002FCjeulogo.png","2026-06-19T12:51:21+00:00","2026-06-19T14:00:20.318732+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"GDPR","product",{"name":22,"type":23},"CJEU","vendor","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},null,"Policy","policy",[30,34,39],{"category":31},{"id":32,"icon":26,"name":19,"slug":33},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","gdpr",{"category":35},{"id":36,"icon":26,"name":37,"slug":38},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":40},{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},[]]