The European Council upholds the independence of the European Data Protection Supervisor

🔥 🔥 🔥 BREAKING NEWS: The Council of the EU (COREPER II) in today's meeting voted in favour of renewing Wojciech Wiewiorowski's mandate as European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).

Digihumanism would like to congratulate the Council for upholding EDPS’ independence.

⚠️ Yesterday, the European Parliament's LIBE Committee expressed in a vote its preference for the Commission's candidate.

However the EDPS' role is to supervise the compliance of EU institutions, including the European Commission, with the EU personal data protection legal regime. 

⛔ Without independence, the EDPS cannot achieve its mission properly.

👉 Let's recall that the complete independence of the EDPS is required by Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 53 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/17251.

👉 The European Court of Justice has repetitively asserted that complete independence is “an essential component of the protection of individuals.”[1]

Supervisory authorities “must enjoy an independence allowing them to perform their duties free from external influence. That independence precludes inter alia any directions or any other external influence in whatever form, whether direct or indirect, which may have an effect on their decisions and which could call into question the performance by those authorities of their task”[2]

“[T]heir decisions — and, therefore, the authorities themselves — [shall] remain above all suspicion of partiality.”[3]

❓The European Parliament and the Council have now to agree on the candidate who will become the next European Data Protection Supervisor.

Karine Caunes, Digihumanism’s Executive Director, stated: “We call on the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to abide by the EU treaty and uphold the independence of the EDPS. This is crucial for the EDPS to play its role in protecting citizens’ personal data. Any other decision would be a very bad signal for the independence of all supervisory authorities.”

[1] Case Commission v Hungary (Grand Chamber) EU:C:2014:237 Para. 48 ; Case C‑518/07 Commission v Germany EU:C:2010:125, paragraph 23, and Case C‑614/10 Commission v Austria EU:C:2012:631, paragraph 37.

[2] Commission v Hungary (Grand Chamber) EU:C:2014:237 Paragraph 51 ; Commission v Germany EU:C:2010:125, paragraph 30 ;  and Commission v Austria EU:C:2012:631, paragraphs 41 and 43

[3] Case Commission v Hungary (Grand Chamber) EU:C:2014:237 Para. 53 ; Commission v Germany EU:C:2010:125, paragraph 36, and Commission v Austria EU:C:2012:631, paragraph 52