menu MENU
arrow_back Tilbake til alle artikler
Endre land (Nåværende : Norway) language
Kontakt vårt medlem i Norway mail_outline
Besøk nettstedet til Bull & Co account_balance

arrow_backTidligere artikkel
Artikkel 81
Neste artikkelarrow_forward

Suspension of proceedings

Offisielle tekster Retningslinjer Beslutninger Vurderinger
EU-regulering Vurderinger
nasj. regulering
Vis nøkkelord og artikler relatert til art. 81 i forordningen keyboard_arrow_down Skjul nøkkelord og artikler relatert til art. 81 keyboard_arrow_up

Det finnes ingen fortaletekst i forordningen relatert til art. 81.

Det finnes ingen fortaletekst i direktivet relatert til art. 81.

GDPR

The Regulation introduces a suspension mechanism when an action against a controller or a processor with the same scope is introduced simultaneously before the courts of several Member States.

Thus, where a competent court has information on proceedings, concerning the same subject matter that is pending in a court in another Member State, it shall first check this information with the court concerned (paragraph 1). Where proceedings concerning the same subject matter as regards processing of the same controller or processor, any competent court other than the court first seized may suspend its proceedings (paragraph 2).

In addition to the suspension procedure, paragraph 3 provides for the possibility for the court subsequently seized to waive competence in favour of the court first seized, at the request of one of the parties. It is necessary however that the procedure in question is pending at first instance, the court first seized must be competent to consider all the requests and the applicable national law must allow such a consolidation.

We can easily imagine that the objective of the Union legislature is to prevent several courts in different Member States from releasing contradictory decisions concerning the same subject matter with respect to the operations of the same controller.

Direktivet

The Directive included no similar provision.

Utfordringer

First, how will the courts subsequently seized be informed of the existence of prior proceedings before the courts of another Member State as presumably, it will be in the interest of the controller or its subcontractor or the processor to report this.

The risk of contradiction is not excluded as Article 81 does not require the courts subsequently seized to suspend the current procedure but only leaves them the option to do so at their discretion.

arrow_back Tidligere artikkel • Artikkel 81 • Neste artikkel arrow_forward
arrow_back Tidligere artikkel • Artikkel 81 Neste artikkel arrow_forward
arrow_back Tidligere artikkel • Artikkel 81 Neste artikkel arrow_forward
Retour au sommaire
arrow_back Tidligere artikkel • Artikkel 81 Neste artikkel arrow_forward
Forordning
1e 2e

Art. 81

1.   Where a competent court of a Member State has information on proceedings, concerning the same subject matter as regards processing by the same controller or processor, that are pending in a court in another Member State, it shall contact that court in the other Member State to confirm the existence of such proceedings.

2.   Where proceedings concerning the same subject matter as regards processing of the same controller or processor are pending in a court in another Member State, any competent court other than the court first seized may suspend its proceedings.

3.   Where those proceedings are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seized may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seized has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.
1. forslag close

No specific provision
2. forslag close

Art. 76a 

1. Where a competent court of a Member State has information on proceedings concerning the same subject matter as regards processing (...) of the same controller or processor are pending in a court in another Member State, it shall contact that court in the other Member State to confirm the existence of such proceedings.

2. Where proceedings concerning the same subject matter as regards processing (...) of the same controller or processor are pending in a court in another Member State, any competent court other than the court first seized may suspend its proceedings. 

2a. Where these proceedings are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seized may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seized has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof. 3. (…).
Direktiv close

No specific provision
Norway
compare_arrows
visibility Gamle loven

Art. 81

Utsettelse av en sak

1. Dersom vedkommende domstol i en medlemsstat har informasjon om at det verserer en sak om samme saksgjenstand med hensyn til behandling foretatt av den samme behandlingsansvarlige eller databehandler ved en domstol i en annen medlemsstat, skal den kontakte nevnte domstol i den andre medlemsstaten for å få bekreftet at foreligger en slik sak.

2. Dersom det verserer en sak om samme saksgjenstand med hensyn til behandling foretatt av samme behandlingsansvarlige eller databehandler ved en domstol i en annen medlemsstat, kan enhver annen vedkommende domstol enn den som saken først ble brakt inn for, utsette saken.

3. Dersom nevnte sak verserer ved første instans, kan enhver annen domstol enn den som saken først ble brakt inn for, på anmodning fra en av partene også erklære at den ikke er domsmyndig dersom domstolen som saken først ble brakt inn for, har domsmyndighet til å behandle de aktuelle sakene, og dens lovgivning tillater forening av dette.
Gamle loven close

Ingen tilsvarnede bestemmelse
arrow_back Tidligere artikkel • Artikkel 81 Neste artikkel arrow_forward
close

2016 - www.itiplaw.eu.