The Termination of the Employment Contract of a Data Protection Officer under GDPR: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Leistritz AG v LH (C-534/20)

Paweł Fajgielski

Abstract


In the judgment in question, the Court of Justice of the European Union rules that Article 38 (3) GDPR does not preclude national legislation which provides that a termination of the employment contract of a data protection officer is allowed only with just cause, even if the termination is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation. In the approving commentary, based on the theses contained in the judgment, the reasons related to the performance of the data protection officer tasks and other reasons for the inspector’s dismissal are discussed. Doubts related to the dismissal of the data protection officer due to the reorganization of the company are also highlighted. The issue of dismissal of the data protection officer is of great practical importance, the considerations and conclusions presented in the commentary may be helpful for many controllers.


Keywords


data protection; data protection officer; GDPR; termination of the employment contract

Full Text:

PDF

References


LITERATURE

Alvarez Rigaudias C., Spina A., Article 38: Position of The Data Protection Officer, [in:] The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, eds. C. Kuner, L.A. Bygrave, C. Docksey, Oxford 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826491.003.0076.

Bergt M., DS-GVO, Article 38, [in:] Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Bundesdatenschutzgesetz – Kommentar, eds. J. Kühling, B. Büchner, München 2018.

Fajgielski P., Ogólne rozporządzenie o ochronie danych. Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych. Komentarz, Warszawa 2022.

Paal B.P., Article 38, [in:] B.P. Paal, D. Pauly, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, München 2017.

MISCELLANEOUS

Opinion of Advocate General Richard de la Tour delivered on 27 January 2022, Leistritz AG v LH, ECLI:EU:C:2022:62.

Working Group Art. 29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’), WP 243 rev.01, adopted on 13 December 2016, as last revised and adopted on 5 April 2017.

LEGAL ACTS

Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on Data Protection) of 20 December 1990 (BGBl. 1990 I, p. 2954), in the version in force from 25 May 2018 until 25 November 2019 (BGBl. 2017 I, p. 2097).

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code), in the version of 2 January 2002 (BGBl. 2002 I, p. 42, corrigenda BGBl. 2002 I, p. 2909, and BGBl. 2003 I, p. 738).

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119/1, and corrigendum OJ 2018 L 127/2).

CASE LAW

Judgment of the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labor Court) of 23 March 2011, 10 AZR 562/09.

Judgment of the CJEU of 22 June 2022, case C-534/20, Leistritz AG v LH, EUR-LEX no. 62020CC0534, ECLI:EU:C:2022:495, LEX nr 3356053.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.2.335-345
Date of publication: 2023-06-27 10:37:04
Date of submission: 2022-09-14 14:28:26


Statistics


Total abstract view - 853
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Paweł Fajgielski

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.