Premessa 143
Recital 143
(143) Kwalunkwe persuna fiżika jew ġuridika għandha d-dritt tagħmel rikors għall-annullament ta’ deċiżjonijiet tal-Bord quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja bil-kundizzjonijiet previsti fl-Artikolu 263 tat-TFUE.
Bħala destinatarji ta’ tali deċiżjonijiet, l-awtoritajiet superviżorji kkonċernati li jixtiequ jikkontestawhom, iridu jagħmlu rikors fi żmien xahrejn minn meta jiġu avżati dwarhom, skont l- Artikolu 263 tat-TFUE.
Fejn id-deċiżjonijiet tal-Bord huma ta’ interess dirett u individwali għal kontrollur, proċessur jew min jagħmel l-ilment, dan tal-aħħar jista’ jagħmel rikors għal annullament kontra dawn id-deċiżjonijiet fi żmien xahrejn mill-pubblikazzjoni tagħhom fuq is-sit tal-internet tal-Bord Ewropew għall-Protezzjoni tad-Data, skont l-Artikolu 263 tat-TFUE.
Mingħajr preġudizzju għal dan id-dritt skont l-Artikolu 263 tat-TFUE, kull persuna fiżika jew ġuridika għandu jkollha rimedju ġudizzjarju effettiv quddiem il-qorti nazzjonali kompetenti kontra deċiżjoni ta’ awtorità superviżorja li tipproduċi effetti legali fir-rigward ta’ dik il-persuna.
Tali deċiżjoni tikkonċerna b’mod partikolari t-tħaddim ta’ setgħat investigattivi, korrettivi u ta’ awtorizzazzjoni mill-awtorità superviżorja jew iċ-ċaħda jew ir-rifjut ta’ ilmenti.
Madankollu, id-dritt għal rimedju ġudizzjarju effettiv ma jinkludix miżuri meħudin minn awtoritajiet superviżorji li mhumiex legalment vinkolanti, bħal opinjonijiet maħruġa jew pariri pprovduti mill-awtorità superviżorja.
Il-proċedimenti kontra awtorità superviżorja għandhom jitressqu quddiem il-qrati tal-Istat Membru fejn tkun stabbilita l-awtorità superviżorja u għandhom jitwettqu skont il-liġi proċedurali ta’ dak l-Istat Membru.
Dawk il-qrati għandhom iħaddmu l-ġurisdizzjoni sħiħa li għandha tinkludi ġurisdizzjoni biex jiġu eżaminati l-kwistjonijiet kollha ta’ fatt u ta’ liġi rilevanti għat-tilwim li jitressaq quddiemhom.
(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.
Fejn ilment ikun ġie miċħud jew irrifjutat minn awtorità superviżorja, min jagħmel l-ilment jista’ jibda proċedimenti quddiem il-qrati fl-istess Stat Membru.
Fil-kuntest ta’ rimedji ġudizzjarji li għandhom x’jaqsmu mal-applikazzjoni ta’ dan ir-Regolament, il-qrati nazzjonali li jqisu li tinħtieġ deċiżjoni dwar il-kwistjoni biex ikunu jistgħu jagħtu sentenza, jistgħu, jew fil-każ previst fl-Artikolu 267 tat-TFUE, iridu, jitolbu lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tagħti deċiżjoni preliminari fuq l-interpretazzjoni tal-liġi tal-Unjoni inkluż dan ir-Regolament.
Barra minn hekk, fejn deċiżjoni ta’ awtorità superviżjorja li timplimenta deċiżjoni tal-Bord tiġi kkontestata quddiem qorti nazzjonali u l-validità tad-deċiżjoni tal-Bord tkun inkwistjoni, dik il-qorti nazzjonali ma għandhiex is-setgħa li tiddikjara d-deċiżjoni tal-Bord bħala invalida iżda trid tirreferi l-kwistjoni tal-validità lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja skont l-Artikolu 267 tat-TFUE kif interpretat mill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, fejn tqis id-deċiżjoni invalida.
Madankollu, qorti nazzjonali ma tistax tirreferi kwistjoni dwar il-validità tad-deċiżjoni tal-Bord fuq it-talba ta’ persuna fiżika jew ġuridika li kellha l-opportunità li tagħmel rikors għal annullament ta’ dik id-deċiżjoni, b’mod partikolari jekk kienet direttament u individwalment ikkonċernata minn dik id-deċiżjoni, iżda ma kinitx għamlet dan fil-perjodu stipulat fl-Artikolu 263 tat-TFUE.
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.
The latest consolidated version of the Regulation with corrections by Corrigendum, OJ L 127, 23.5.2018, p. 2 ((EU) 2016/679). Source: EUR-lex.