← back to the act's dossier

GDPR — Article 65

The article's text

Article 65 Dispute resolution by the Board 1. In order to ensure the correct and consistent application of this Regulation in individual cases, the Board shall adopt a binding decision in the following cases: (a) where, in a case referred to in Article 60(4), a supervisory authority concerned has raised a relevant and reasoned objection to a draft decision of the lead supervisory authority and the lead supervisory authority has not followed the objection or has rejected such an objection as being not relevant or reasoned. The binding decision shall concern all the matters which are the subject of the relevant and reasoned objection, in particular whether there is an infringement of this Regulation; (b) where there are conflicting views on which of the supervisory authorities concerned is competent for the main establishment; (c) where a competent supervisory authority does not request the opinion of the Board in the cases referred to in Article 64(1), or does not follow the opinion of the Board issued under Article 64. In that case, any supervisory authority concerned or the Commission may communicate the matter to the Board. 64. In that case, any supervisory authority concerne
full text
d or the Commission may communicate the matter to the Board. 2. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted within one month from the referral of the subject-matter by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Board. That period may be extended by a further month on account of the complexity of the subject-matter. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be reasoned and addressed to the lead supervisory authority and all the supervisory authorities concerned and binding on them. and addressed to the lead supervisory authority and all the supervisory authorities concerned and binding on them. 3. Where the Board has been unable to adopt a decision within the periods referred to in paragraph 2, it shall adopt its decision within two weeks following the expiration of the second month referred to in paragraph 2 by a simple majority of the members of the Board. Where the members of the Board are split, the decision shall by adopted by the vote of its Chair. 4. The supervisory authorities concerned shall not adopt a decision on the subject matter submitted to the Board under paragraph 1 during the periods referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3. on the subject matter submitted to the Board under paragraph 1 during the periods referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3. 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. of the Board without delay after the supervisory authority has notified the final decision referred to in paragraph 6. 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.

Who wrote about this article in the consultations

Filers who named this exact article number in their own text. It is their sentence, not our reading — and not a causal claim.

17
business association
6
NGO
2
ACADEMIC_RESEARCH_INSTITTUTION
1
non-EU citizen
WhoCountryWhat they wrote
ANITEC-ASSINFORMITseek to clarify the application of the dispute resolution procedure under Article 65(1)(a) GDPR. The major gaps in the Guidelines are around the role of the EDPB. Specifically: o (i) a controller/processor’s right to be heard before the EDPB. ↗
Bitkom e.V.DEimposition of a fine (or another sanction) or give instructions to the LSA relating to the amount of the fine – which we believe Article 65 does not cover –, the right to be heard must include an oral hearing as well as with written submissions. ↗
ITI - Information Technology Industry CouncilUStatements which would be made available to the complainant (Article 21, paragraph 6). 4 As the dispute resolution procedure under Article 65 of the GDPR leads to a binding EDPB decision, the proposed Regulation should clarify the fundamental nature of this pro ↗
Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)BEe Centre for Information Policy Leadership on the European Data Protection Board’s Draft Guidelines 03/2021 on the application of Article 65(1)(a) GDPR (https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/cipl_comments_on_edpb_article_65_ draft_gu ↗
DIGITALEUROPEBEprocedure could result in an increase in dispute resolution requests. Instead, the final text should reflect that Art. 65 GDPR dispute resolution procedures aim to resolve disputes between DPAs, rather than to direct the LSA’s fact-finding investigations and s ↗
EuroCommerceBEght to be heard should also be granted by the EDPB in the situations that the EDPB intervenes to resolve disputes between DPAs ex article 65 GDPR. This is specifically important because there is no opportunity to comment on the LDPAs final draft decision befor ↗
AmCham SlovenijaSIosition adopted by the party under investigation.  The party under investigation’s right to be heard directly by the EDPB in the Article 65 GDPR proceedings should take place before the EDPB adopts its decision. ↗
Ecommerce EuropeBEArticle 65 (GDPR) process, and we find it incomprehensible why the EDPB would seek to impose such deadlines on the SAs. Finally, if concerns persist about the ability of the SAs to progress investigations in a timely manner, while simultaneously ensuring due j ↗
DOT EuropeBEd, and concerned SAs already actively work together with the Lead SA towards OSS decisions. If the use of this dispute mechanism (Article 65) is not limited to exceptional cases only, we believe that the lead SA principle will be undermined and cooperation bet ↗
Asociación Española de Economía Digital (Adigital)ESfixed deadlines imposed by the Article 65 process and queries why it would seek to impose such deadlines on the SAs. ● We further submit that the imposition of arbitrary procedural deadlines will result in rushed decisions and, as such, is likely to result in ↗
CEDPO - European Confederation of Data Protection Organisations.BEsues relating to data processing activities. As a consequence, the DPO should be involved by the supervisory authority and, where article 65 GDPR is triggered, by the EDPB, at every step of an enforcement procedure relating to a data processing activity where ↗
American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmCham EU)BEmining whether the CSA’s objections are relevant and reasonable. If so, the board resolves any relevant dispute between the CSAs (Article 65(1)(a)). IV. Clarifying the position of complainants in the procedural steps According to the EDPB, clarifying the posit ↗
noybATRegulation. 66 This ensures that if a CSA insists, there has to be a decision under Article 60(3) GDPR which can then lead to an Article 65 GDPR procedure. 67 Could be developed from existing enforcement sub group, but with permanent members that deal with pr ↗
DIGITALEUROPEBElines 02/2022. 4 hearings to inform the decision-making process, they should also be part of dispute-resolution proceedings under Art. 65. ↗
Polish Confederation LewiatanPLosition adopted by the party under investigation. • The party under investigation’s right to be heard directly by the EDPB in the Article 65 GDPR proceedings should take place before the EDPB adopts its decision. ↗
American Chamber of Commerce in PolandPLosition adopted by the party under investigation. • The party under investigation’s right to be heard directly by the EDPB in the Article 65 GDPR proceedings should take place before the EDPB adopts its decision. ↗
ITI - Information Technology Industry CouncilUSe a last resort. • Businesses of all sizes would benefit from a fair, transparent, and consistent application of the GDPR. Recent Article 65 enforcement decisions show that national Supervisory Authorities (‘SAs’) within the EU differ on the interpretation of ↗
Związek Pracodawców Branży Internetowej IAB PolskaPLony postępowania wysłuchania przez EROD w postępowaniach transgranicznych dotyczących wydania wiążących decyzji, o których mowa w art. 65 RODO, powinno mieć miejsce przed przyjęciem takiej decyzji przez Radę. W praktyce oznacza to, że strona postępowania powin ↗
Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)BEsion after relevant and reasoned objections were sent and adopting a final decision after consensus was reached or triggering the Article 65 GDPR procedure. CIPL can appreciate that the introduction of specific deadlines in cross-border cases may support a tim ↗
European Digital Rights (EDRi)BETel. +32 2 274 25 70 | www.edri.org informed about the sending of the case to the EDPB.14 Right for the complainant to trigger Article 65(1)(b) GDPR In some cases where the SAs take longer than a “reasonable time” to determine which SA is the LSA, the compl ↗
CCIA - Computer & Communications Industry AssociationBEst be subject to judicial oversight Controllers and processors must have a right to appeal an EDPB binding decision following the Article 65 GDPR dispute resolution procedure. ↗
Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW) e.V.DEntlich könnte darüber noch zusätzlich mehr Einheitlichkeit gewährleistet werden. Das sogenannte Streitbeilegungsverfahren, das in Art. 65 der DSGVO geregelt ist, sieht vor, dass der Europäische Datenschutzausschuss in bestimmten Fällen einen Beschluss fassen k ↗
Access Now EuropeFRer of objections raised by CSAs at the draft decision stage and limit the use of the dispute resolution mechanisms foreseen under Article 65 of the GDPR. Measure for cross-border complaint handling and resolutions: The Regulation shall establish the following ↗
ACT | The App AssociationBEinvolved because of a cross-border scenario, they do not always reach a consensus. While the GDPR’s dispute resolution mechanism (Article 65) accounts for those situations, we agree with the Commission that clarifying existing steps and spelling out additional ↗
David BARNARD-WILLSGBsessions or published minutes) need to be introduced in order to deal with cases where such an event may be anticipated (e.g. in Article 65 GDPR). 5.5 Explicitly address the right of appeal Given the court-like nature of the consistency mechanism, an explicit ↗
Europäische Akademie für Informationsfreiheit und Datenschutz e.V.DEaume Zeit verstrichen ist, bevor der Europäische Datenschutzausschuss Ende 2022 erstmals konsequent von seinen Möglichkeiten nach Art. 65 Abs. 2 Gebrauch gemacht hat. Allerdings ist es richtig, bereits jetzt (vor der anstehenden nächsten Evaluation) bestimmte ↗

Source: public consultation submissions and position papers. n = 26 mentions; counted as a literal reference to the article number.

Ask about this article →