Nascleanúint
RGCS (GDPR) > Airteagal 78. An ceart chun leigheas breithiúnach éifeachtach a fháil i gcoinne údarás maoirseachta
Íoslódáil PDF

Airteagal 78 RGCS (GDPR). An ceart chun leigheas breithiúnach éifeachtach a fháil i gcoinne údarás maoirseachta

Article 78 GDPR. Right to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority

1. Gan dochar do leigheas riaracháin nó neamhbhreithiúnach ar bith eile, beidh an ceart ag gach duine nádúrtha nó dlíthiúil leigheas éifeachtach breithiúnach a fháil i gcoinne cinneadh a bhaineann leo a dhéanann údarás maoirseachta agus atá ina cheangal de réir dlí.

1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each natural or legal person shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy against a legally binding decision of a supervisory authority concerning them.

2. Gan dochar d’aon leigheas riaracháin nó neamhbhreithiúnach ar bith eile, beidh an ceart ag gach ábhar sonraí leigheas éifeachtach breithiúnach a bheith aige i gcás nach láimhseálann an t-údarás maoirseachta atá inniúil de bhun Airteagal 55 agus Airteagal 56 gearán nó i gcás nach gcuireann sé an t-ábhar sonraí ar an eolas laistigh de thrí mhí maidir le dul chun cinn nó le toradh an ghearáin arna thaisceadh de bhun Airteagal 77.

2. Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each data subject shall have the right to a an effective judicial remedy where the supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 does not handle a complaint or does not inform the data subject within three months on the progress or outcome of the complaint lodged pursuant to Article 77.

Téacsanna gaolmhara

3. Tionscnófar imeachtaí i gcoinne údarás maoirseachta os comhair na gcúirteanna sa Bhallstát ina bhfuil an t-údarás maoirseachta bunaithe.

3. Proceedings against a supervisory authority shall be brought before the courts of the Member State where the supervisory authority is established.

4. I gcás imeachtaí a thionscnaítear i gcoinne cinneadh ó údarás maoirseachta ar thug an Bord tuairim nó cinneadh uaidh roimhe tríd an sásra comhsheasmhachta, cuirfidh an t-údarás maoirseachta an cinneadh nó an tuairim sin ar aghaidh chuig an gCúirt.

4. Where proceedings are brought against a decision of a supervisory authority which was preceded by an opinion or a decision of the Board in the consistency mechanism, the supervisory authority shall forward that opinion or decision to the court.

Recitals Leave a comment
Recitals

(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.

Má dhéanann údarás maoirseachta gearán a dhiúltú nó a dhíbhe, féadfaidh an gearánach imeachtaí a thionscnamh os comhair na gcúirteanna sa Bhallstát céanna. I gcomhthéacs na leigheasanna breithiúnacha a bhaineann leis an Rialachán seo a chur i bhfeidhm, is iad na cúirteanna náisiúnta a mheasann go bhfuil gá le cinneadh maidir leis an gceist ionas go bhféadfaidís breithiúnas a thabhairt, féadfaidh siad, nó sa chás dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 267 CFAE, ní mór dóibh, a iarraidh ar an gCúirt Bhreithiúnais réamhrialú a thabhairt ar léiriú dhlí an Aontais, lena n-áirítear an Rialachán seo. Thairis sin, i gcás ina ndéantar cinneadh ó údarás maoirseachta lena gcuirtear chun feidhme cinneadh an Bhoird a agóid os comhair cúirt náisiúnta agus i gcás ina bhfuil bailíocht chinneadh an Bhoird faoi shaincheist, níl sé de chumhacht ag an gcúirt náisiúnta sin a dhearbhú go bhfuil cinneadh an Bhoird neamhbhailí agus ní mór di ceist na bailíochta a tharchur chun na Cúirte Breithiúnais i gcomhréir le Airteagal 267 CFAE arna leiriú ag an gCúirt Bhreithiúnais é, i gcás ina measann sí an cinneadh a bheith neamhbhailí. Mar sin féin, ní fhéadfaidh cúirt náisiúnta ceist faoi bhailíocht chinneadh an Bhoird a tharchur ar iarraidh ó dhuine nádúrtha nó dlítheanach a raibh an deis aige nó aici caingean a thabhairt ar mhaithe leis an gcinneadh sin a chur ar neamhní, go háirithe más rud é gur bhain an cinneadh sin leis nó léi go díreach nó go leithleach, ach nach ndearna sé nó sí amhlaidh laistigh den tréimhse atá leagtha síos in Airteagal 263 CFAE.

Where a complaint has been rejected or dismissed by a supervisory authority, the complainant may bring proceedings before the courts in the same Member State. In the context of judicial remedies relating to the application of this Regulation, national courts which consider a decision on the question necessary to enable them to give judgment, may, or in the case provided for in Article 267 TFEU, must, request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Union law, including this Regulation. Furthermore, where a decision of a supervisory authority implementing a decision of the Board is challenged before a national court and the validity of the decision of the Board is at issue, that national court does not have the power to declare the Board’s decision invalid but must refer the question of validity to the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 267 TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice, where it considers the decision invalid. However, a national court may not refer a question on the validity of the decision of the Board at the request of a natural or legal person which had the opportunity to bring an action for annulment of that decision, in particular if it was directly and individually concerned by that decision, but had not done so within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

Leave a comment
[js-disqus]