... 5. Cuirfidh Cathaoirleach an Bhoird an cinneadh dá dtagraítear i mír 1 in iúl do na húdaráis mhaoirseachta lena mbaineann gan aon mhoill mhíchuí. Cuirfidh sé an Coimisiún ar an eolas ina thaobh sin. Foilseofar an cinneadh gan mhoill ar shuíomh gréasáin an Bhoird tar éis don údarás maoirseachta fógra a thabhairt faoin gcinneadh críochnaitheach dá dtagraítear i mír 6. ...
... 5. The Chair of the Board shall notify, without undue delay, the decision referred to in paragraph 1 to the supervisory authorities concerned. It shall inform the Commission thereof. The decision shall be published on the website of the Board without delay after the supervisory authority has notified the final decision referred to in paragraph 6. ...
... 8. Déanfaidh an Coimisiún liosta a fhoilsiú, in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh agus ar a shuíomh gréasáin, de na tríú tíortha, de na críocha agus de na hearnálacha sonraithe i dtríú tír agus de na heagraíochtaí idirnáisiúnta ar chinn an Coimisiún ina leith go raibh nó nach raibh a leibhéil chosanta leormhaith. ...
... 8. The Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union and on its website a list of the third countries, territories and specified sectors within a third country and international organisations for which it has decided that an adequate level of protection is or is no longer ensured. ...
... (58) Ceanglaítear le prionsabal na trédhearcachta gur cheart é a bheith éasca rochtain a fháil ar aon fhaisnéis atá dírithe ar an bpobal nó ar an ábhar sonraí, gur cheart don fhaisnéis sin a bheith gonta agus éasca a thuiscint agus gur cheart í a bheith i dteanga shoiléir shimplí agus, sa bhreis air sin, gur cheart úsáid a bhaint as léirshamhlú, i gcás inarb ábhartha. D'fhéadfaí faisnéis den sórt sin a chur ar fáil i bhfoirm leictreonach, mar shampla, agus í dírithe ar an bpobal, trí shuíomh gréasáin. Tá ábharthacht ar leith ag baint leis sin i staideanna ina bhfágann iomadú na ngníomhaithe agus castacht theicneolaíoch an chleachtais nach éasca don ábhar sonraí a bheith ar an eolas faoi cibé an bhfuil sonraí pearsanta a bhaineann leis nó léi á mbailiú, faoi cé atá á mbailiú agus faoi cad chuige a bhfuil siad á mbailiú, agus nach éasca dó nó di an méid sin a thuiscint, amhail i gcás fógraíocht ar líne. Toisc go bhfuil cosaint ar leith dlite do leanaí, ba cheart aon fhaisnéis agus cumarsáid maidir le próiseáil a bhaineann le leanbh a thabhairt i dteanga shoiléir shimplí le go bhféadfaidh an leanbh í a thuiscint go héasca. ...
... (58) The principle of transparency requires that any information addressed to the public or to the data subject be concise, easily accessible and easy to understand, and that clear and plain language and, additionally, where appropriate, visualisation be used. Such information could be provided in electronic form, for example, when addressed to the public, through a website. This is of particular relevance in situations where the proliferation of actors and the technological complexity of practice make it difficult for the data subject to know and understand whether, by whom and for what purpose personal data relating to him or her are being collected, such as in the case of online advertising. Given that children merit specific protection, any information and communication, where processing is addressed to a child, should be in such a clear and plain language that the child can easily understand. ...
... (143) Tá an ceart ag aon duine nádúrtha nó dlítheanach caingean a thionscnamh chun cinntí de chuid an Bhoird a neamhniú os comhair na Cúirt Breithiúnais faoi na coinníollacha dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 263 CFAE. Mar sheolaithe cinntí den sórt sin, ní mór do na húdaráis mhaoirseachta lena mbaineann, ar mian leo agóid a dhéanamh in aghaidh na gcinntí, caingean a thionscnamh laistigh de dhá mhí tar éis fógra a fháil fúthu, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 263 CFAE. I gcás chinntí an Bhoird a bhfuil baint dhíreach phearsanta acu le rialaitheoir, próiseálaí nó an gearánach, féadfaidh an gearánach sin caingean a thionscnamh le haghaidh neamhniú i gcoinne na gcinntí sin agus ba cheart dóibh amhlaidh a dhéanamh laistigh de dhá mhí tar éis a fhoilsithe ar shuíomh gréasáin an Bhoird, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 263 CFAE. Gan dochar don cheart sin faoi Airteagal 263 CFAE, ba cheart leigheas éifeachtach breithiúnach a bheith ag gach duine nádúrtha nó dlítheanach os comhair na cúirte náisiúnta inniúla in aghaidh cinneadh ó údarás maoirseachta a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla aige a bhaineann leis an duine sin. Baineann cinneadh den sórt sin go háirithe le feidhmiú cumhachtaí imscrúdaitheacha, ceartaitheacha agus údaraithe ag an údarás maoirseachta nó le gearáin a dhíbhe nó a dhiúltú. Mar sin féin, ní chuimsítear leis an gceart an chun leigheas breithiúnach éifeachtach a fháil bearta a dhéanann údaráis mhaoirseachta nach bhfuil ceangailteach ó thaobh dlí de, amhail tuairimí a d'eisigh an t-údarás maoirseachta nó comhairle a thug sé. Ba cheart imeachtaí i gcoinne údarás maoirseachta a thabhairt os comhair chúirteanna an Bhallstáit ina bhfuil an t-údarás maoirseachta bunaithe agus ba cheart iad a dhéanamh i gcomhréir le dlí nós imeachta an Bhallstáit sin. Ba cheart do na cúirteanna sin dlínse iomlán a fheidhmiú ar cheart a bheith ar áireamh inti dlínse chun scrúdú a dhéanamh ar na ceisteanna uile fírice agus dlí atá ábhartha maidir leis an díospóid atá os a gcomhair. ...
... (143) Any natural or legal person has the right to bring an action for annulment of decisions of the Board before the Court of Justice under the conditions provided for in Article 263 TFEU. As addressees of such decisions, the supervisory authorities concerned which wish to challenge them have to bring action within two months of being notified of them, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU. Where decisions of the Board are of direct and individual concern to a controller, processor or complainant, the latter may bring an action for annulment against those decisions within two months of their publication on the website of the Board, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU. Without prejudice to this right under Article 263 TFEU, each natural or legal person should have an effective judicial remedy before the competent national court against a decision of a supervisory authority which produces legal effects concerning that person. Such a decision concerns in particular the exercise of investigative, corrective and authorisation powers by the supervisory authority or the dismissal or rejection of complaints. However, the right to an effective judicial remedy does not encompass measures taken by supervisory authorities which are not legally binding, such as opinions issued by or advice provided by the supervisory authority. Proceedings against a supervisory authority should be brought before the courts of the Member State where the supervisory authority is established and should be conducted in accordance with that Member State's procedural law. Those courts should exercise full jurisdiction, which should include jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before them. ...
... ...
... Moreover, necessary information should also be provided in the right context, at the appropriate time. Since the controller carries out many processing operations using the data collected on the website, a general privacy policy on the website alone is not sufficient for the controller to meet the requirements of transparency. The controller therefore designs an information flow, presenting the data subject with relevant information within the appropriate contexts using e.g. informational snippets or pop-ups. For example, when asking the data subject to enter personal data, the controller informs the data subject of how the personal data will be processed and why that personal data is necessary for the processing. ...
... 6. Glacfaidh an príomhúdarás maoirseachta, nó, de réir mar a bheidh, an t-údarás maoirseachta ar taisceadh an gearán leis cinneadh críochnaitheach ar bhonn an chinnidh dá dtagraítear i mír 1 den Airteagal seo, gan aon mhoill mhíchuí agus tráth nach déanaí ná aon mhí amháin tar éis don Bhord fógra a thabhairt maidir lena chinneadh. Déanfaidh an príomhúdarás maoirseachta, nó, de réir mar a bheidh, an t-údarás maoirseachta ar taisceadh an gearán leis, an Bord a chur ar an eolas faoin dáta a gcuirfear fógra faoina chinneadh críochnaitheach chuig an rialaitheoir nó chuig an bpróiseálaí agus chuig an ábhar sonraí, faoi seach. Glacfar cinneadh críochnaitheach na n-údarás maoirseachta lena mbaineann faoi théarmaí Airteagal 60(7), (8) agus (9). Tagrófar sa chinneadh críochnaitheach don chinneadh dá dtagraítear i mír 1, agus sonrófar ann go ndéanfar an cinneadh dá dtagraítear i mír 1 den Airteagal seo a fhoilsiú ar shuíomh gréasáin an Bhoird i gcomhréir le mír 5 den Airteagal seo. Ceanglófar leis an gcinneadh críochnaitheach an cinneadh dá dtagraítear i mír 1 den Airteagal seo. ...
... 6. The lead supervisory authority or, as the case may be, the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall adopt its final decision on the basis of the decision referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, without undue delay and at the latest by one month after the Board has notified its decision. The lead supervisory authority or, as the case may be, the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged, shall inform the Board of the date when its final decision is notified respectively to the controller or the processor and to the data subject. The final decision of the supervisory authorities concerned shall be adopted under the terms of Article 60(7), (8) and (9). The final decision shall refer to the decision referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and shall specify that the decision referred to in that paragraph will be published on the website of the Board in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Article. The final decision shall attach the decision referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. ...
... ...
... It is however important to recall that Recital 23 confirms that the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, the mention on the website of its e-mail or geographical address, or of its telephone number without an international code, does not, of itself, provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the controller or processor’s intention to offer goods or a services to a data subject located in the Union. In this context, the EDPB recalls that when goods or services are inadvertently or incidentally provided to a person on the territory of the Union, the related processing of personal data would not fall within the territorial scope of the GDPR. ...
... ...
... 18. [Example 2] A local municipality is planning road maintenance works. As the road works may disrupt traffic for a long time, the municipality offers its citizens the opportunity to subscribe to an email list to receive updates on the progress of the works and on expected delays. The municipality makes clear that there is no obligation to participate and asks for consent to use email addresses for this (exclusive) purpose. Citizens that do not consent will not miss out on any core service of the municipality or the exercise of any right, so they are able to give or refuse their consent to this use of data freely. All information on the road works will also be available on the municipality’s website. ...
... ...
... 96. [Example 17] A data controller may also obtain explicit consent from a visitor to its website by offering an explicit consent screen that contains Yes and No check boxes, provided that the text clearly indicates the consent, for instance “I, hereby, consent to the processing of my data”, and not for instance, “It is clear to me that my data will be processed”. It goes without saying that the conditions for informed consent as well as the other conditions for obtaining valid consent should be met. ...
... ...
... Both Articles 13 and 14 refer to the obligation on the data controller to “provide the data subject with all of the following information…” The operative word here is “provide”. This means that the data controller must take active steps to furnish the information in question to the data subject or to actively direct the data subject to the location of it (e.g. by way of a direct link, use of a QR code, etc.). The data subject must not have to actively search for information covered by these articles amongst other information, such as terms and conditions of use of a website or app. The example at paragraph 11 illustrates this point. As noted above at paragraph 17, WP29 recommends that the entirety of the information addressed to data subjects should also be available to them in one single place or one complete document (e.g. whether in a digital form on a website or in paper format) which can be easily accessed should they wish to consult the entirety of the information. ...