C029-15 Roularta Media Group N.V.

Data Transfers
Case project
Controller
Roularta Media Group N.V.
Case status
Lost
Filed: (4 years 2 months ago)

This is one of noyb 101 complaints which were filed after the "Schrems II" judgement in Summer 2020. The judgement invalidated the EU-US data transfer mechanism "Privacy Shield". The cases were generated based on implemented Google Analytics or Facebook tracking code on websites by EU providers, which leads to unlawful data transfers to the United States.

Protocol
Data Podsumowanie
06.09.2024
Decision litigation chamber BE DPA
12.07.2024
noyb sends comments regarding transcripts of the hearing
26.06.2024
DPA shares link for hybrid hearing
24.06.2024
DPA acknowledges receipt of submission of both controllers
21.06.2024
second Google submission

Google filed a second submission, replying to noyb's statement regarding procedural issues.

21.06.2024
second controller statement

The controller filed a second statement, replying to noyb's submission regarding procedural issues.

17.06.2024
noyb requests to join hearing remotely
29.05.2024
noyb statement to procedural issues

noyb filed a statement to the procedural issues after the controller and processor filed their respective statement.

10.05.2024
Google statement to procedural issues

Google submits it statement to the procedural issues of the case

10.05.2024
controller statement to procedural issues

controller submitted its statement to the procedural issues of the case

29.03.2024
GBA prolongs deadlines

Letter from GBA prolonging the deadline for all parties to the proceeding for the statements regarding the procedural issues.

20.03.2024
access to case file

DPA provides access to case file

13.03.2024
Mail from litigationchamber

litigation chamber provided us with a report and asked us to provide a statement regarding the procedural aspects of the filing of the complaint.

12.07.2023
noyb called the Belgian DPA to request update

The investigation service finished the investigation and transmitted the report to the litigation chamber which will now handle the case.

08.12.2021
Belgian DPA replied to our letter

Belgian DPA replied to our letter, insisting in confidentiality and stating that they will not dicuss the matter of confidentiality with us. We will be heard when the matter is at the litigation chamber.

12.11.2021
noyb sends a reply letter to the DPA
11.10.2021
The Inspection Service of the Belgian DPA sends noyb a letter in English re all four complaints filed with them

The Inspection Service of the Belgian DPA sent us a letter (in English) re all four complaints filed with them: Their competence still seems to be subject of investigation. noyb will be drafting a letter in French to seek clarification on competence.

14.07.2021
Belgium DPA sent us a letter hinting that they are still unsure regarding their competence

Belgium DPA sent us a letter, hinting that they are still unsure regardingtheir compentence, that the investigation is ongoing and that we cannot get access to the files of the case.

13.07.2021
noyb asked the Belgium DPA for an update
09.11.2020
Belgium DPA sent a letter stating that they cannot confirm being LSA yet

Belgium DPA sent a letter, stating that they cannot confirm lead LSA yet and that they are unable to grant us access to document, quoting "the Act of 3 December 2017". State that they will communicate our exchange to other DPAs.

05.11.2020
Belgium DPA replied stating that complaints were declared admissible

Belgium DPA replied, stating that complaints were declared admissible on 25.08.2020 and forwarded to the DPA Litigation Chamber. Litigation Chamber has now decided to request an investigation from the DPA Inspection Service.

29.10.2020
noyb sends follow up email asking for an update
25.08.2020
noyb replied explaining how to open HAR files
24.08.2020
Belgium DPA asked to be provided with the attachments as PDF
17.08.2020
Complaint