(144) Kadar sodišče, pred katerim poteka postopek zoper odločitev nadzornega organa, utemeljeno meni, da v zvezi z enako obdelavo, kot je enaka vsebina, kar zadeva obdelavo s strani istega upravljavca ali obdelovalca, ali enaka podlaga za tožbo, predloži zadevo pristojnemu sodišču v drugi državi članici, bi moralo obvestiti zadevno sodišče, da se potrdi obstoj povezanih postopkov. Če povezani postopki potekajo pred sodiščem v drugi državi članici, lahko katero koli sodišče, razen sodišča, ki je prvo začelo postopek, zaustavi postopek ali na zahtevo ene od strank zavrne pristojnost v prid sodišča, ki je prvo začelo postopek, če je to sodišče pristojno za zadevne postopke in lahko v skladu s svojim pravom združi tako povezane postopke. Postopki veljajo za povezane, kadar so med seboj tako tesno povezani, da se zdita njihova skupna obravnava in skupno odločanje o njih smiselna, da bi se izognili nevarnosti nezdružljivih sodb, ki bi izhajale iz ločenih postopkov.
(144) Where a court seized of proceedings against a decision by a supervisory authority has reason to believe that proceedings concerning the same processing, such as the same subject matter as regards processing by the same controller or processor, or the same cause of action, are brought before a competent court in another Member State, it should contact that court in order to confirm the existence of such related proceedings. If related proceedings are pending before a court in another Member State, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings or may, on request of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seized if that court has jurisdiction over the proceedings in question and its law permits the consolidation of such related proceedings. Proceedings are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.