Recital 144
General Data Protection Regulation · UE 2016/679
| (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. |
In Luxembourg, appeals against a CNPD decision fall under the administrative court (Article 52 et seq. of the law of 1 August 2018 organising the CNPD and implementing the GDPR), with appeal to the Administrative Court. The coordination contemplated by recital 144 must therefore be raised from the initial pleadings before the administrative court, failing which the Luxembourg jurisdiction will rule without knowledge of related actions pending in Paris or Brussels.
Luxgap practice: we systematically include a relatedness clause in our CNPD memoranda, citing recital 144 and the identified foreign jurisdiction, to preserve the option of stay or decline of jurisdiction from the very first procedural act.
