Abstract
[Extract]
Discussing the usefulness of an Advocate General's Opinion, former Advocate General Wahl - now Judge of the Court of Justice - made the point that: 'The clarity and the strength of the argumentation for the proposed solution is what elevate it from a mere opinion to an Advocate General's Opinion'. This is an important observation, and an observation with applicability extending also to the Opinions issued by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB).
On 9 July 2019, the EDPB adopted its 'Opinion 8/2019 on the competence of a supervisory authority in case of a change in circumstances relating to the main or single establishment'. The Opinion was issued in response to requests by the Swedish and French Data Protection Authorities. This Opinion is a further clarification on jurisdictional issues, after the EDPB's Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) which many view as not having given sufficiently clear guidance on the matter. This report - after presenting the main content of the Opinion 8/2019 - will conclude with a critical position that the new Opinion is not convincing and has a troubling conclusion.
Discussing the usefulness of an Advocate General's Opinion, former Advocate General Wahl - now Judge of the Court of Justice - made the point that: 'The clarity and the strength of the argumentation for the proposed solution is what elevate it from a mere opinion to an Advocate General's Opinion'. This is an important observation, and an observation with applicability extending also to the Opinions issued by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB).
On 9 July 2019, the EDPB adopted its 'Opinion 8/2019 on the competence of a supervisory authority in case of a change in circumstances relating to the main or single establishment'. The Opinion was issued in response to requests by the Swedish and French Data Protection Authorities. This Opinion is a further clarification on jurisdictional issues, after the EDPB's Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) which many view as not having given sufficiently clear guidance on the matter. This report - after presenting the main content of the Opinion 8/2019 - will conclude with a critical position that the new Opinion is not convincing and has a troubling conclusion.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 98-101 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | European Data Protection Law Review |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2020 |