How precise linguistics shaped the AG opinion in the Meta v BVV class action

The linguistics” – that’s what I said was intriguing about the AG Opinion in a GDPR class action case (Meta v BVV, CJEU case C-757/22) when Global Data Review asked me for a quote.

This case deals with Art. 80(2) GDPR, which allows EU Member States to adopt (if they wish) laws to permit (consumer protection) associations to file complaints even in the absence of a data subject’s mandate.

This provision was recently referenced by the Belgian DPA in a decision dismissing a noyb complaint, because Belgium did *not* implement it (see my post here: https://lnkd.in/eCxsvAit ).

In C-757/22, the question referred was whether an infringement of the information obligations under Art. 12 & 13 GDPR is sufficient for a complaint based on that Art. 80(2) (which allows such a complaint “if [the association] considers that the rights of a data subject under [the GDPR] have been infringed as a result of the processing”), even if no actual processing has yet taken place.
In other words, does “as a result of the processing” still allow the filing of a complaint in the absence of such processing when it comes to transparency infringements?

In his Opinion, rendered in French, AG Richard de la Tour (first name Jean) was examining whether the words – “du fait du traitement” in French (“fait” being “fact”, you could translate it as “by virtue of [the fact of] the processing”) – imply a temporal sequence (i.e. first processing, then infringement). His conclusion? No.

The issue I have with this Opinion is that it seems to work in French but not necessarily in other languages.

In English, for instance, this leads to this awkward paragraph 52:
“It follows that the requirement according to which an entity can bring a representative action under Article�80(2) of the GDPR if it considers that the rights of a data subject provided for in [the GDPR] have been infringed �as a result of the processing� does not, in my view, require that that entity invoke the infringement of such rights which results from a data processing operation within the meaning of point�2 of Article�4 of that regulation, and which is therefore subsequent to such an operation.

Read it carefully, and tell me you’re not confused. “As a result of the processing” does not mean “results from a data processing operation”?

In French, though, the contradiction isn’t as apparent, because “du fait du traitement” (“by virtue of the processing”) is said not to be the same as an infringement that “r�sulte d�une op�ration de traitement de donn�es” (= “results from” processing).

In Dutch, “ten gevolge” (= consequence) and “volgt” (= follows) have a similar root, so same issue as in English.

So, reader, what about your language?
And do you agree with the AG?

Link to Opinion (EN, other languages available): https://lnkd.in/e3tnmD7W
GDR report (paywall): https://lnkd.in/eC55nYG3

data protection privacy