General Court of the European Union: Autonomy of the right of access to the file

State of facts

In 2018, an Austrian Facebook user complained that the social network violated the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The complaint concerned the processing of personal data. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority, which, given Meta’s registered office, referred the matter to the Irish Data Protection Authority (hereinafter “the Irish Authority”) for a decision. The Irish Authority subsequently prepared a draft decision and sent it to the other European supervisory authorities and to the applicant. Some supervisory authorities disagreed with the proposal and raised objections. As the Irish authority was unwilling to comply with several of these objections, it referred the matter to the European Data Protection Board (hereinafter “EDPB”).

The plaintiff unsuccessfully sought access to the objections and the file from the Irish authority. She therefore turned directly to the EDPB, which, however, did not recognize her status as a party to its proceedings, as the decision did not directly concern individuals. The EDPB later provided the applicant with part of the documents but continued to refuse to acknowledge that she might be adversely affected by the decision.

On the matter itself

The case has come before the General Court of the European Union (hereinafter “the General Court”) and concerns mainly the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter “the Charter”). Specifically, this concerns paragraph 2, which in point (a) establishes the right to be heard if the measure could adversely affect a person, and in point (b) the right of access to the file concerning the person concerned. Here, the General Court concluded that these are two separate rights, and therefore the person concerned should have access to the file even if he or she was unable to exercise his or her right to be heard.

Following the above conclusion, the General Court had to assess whether the particular file actually concerned the applicant. It should be noted here that the binding decision is based on the plaintiff’s complaint and the file therefore also takes her arguments into account. Therefore, even though the plaintiff was not formally a party to the proceedings, she has a direct interest in the outcome, i.e., the file concerns the plaintiff. The General Court therefore annulled the contested decision of the EDPB in so far as it rejected the applicant’s request for access to the file.

Conclusion

The right of access to the file under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter is autonomous and independent of the right to be heard. Its exercise is not conditional on the applicant being adversely affected by the decision, but on whether the file ‘concerns’ the applicant, i.e. whether he/she has a direct interest in the outcome. Restrictions on this right may only be imposed by law in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter.