Leistritz (Opinion) French Text [2022] EUECJ C-534/20_O (27 January 2022)

Leistritz (Opinion) French Text [2022] EUECJ C-534/20_O (27 January 2022)

Article 38(3), second sentence, of the GDPR does not preclude national legislation that provides greater protection against dismissal for DPOs, such as requiring serious cause, even if the dismissal is unrelated to DPO duties. The GDPR sets a minimum standard for DPO independence but does not fully harmonize employment protection, allowing Member States to adopt stricter rules. The provision is valid and based on an adequate legal basis in EU law.

Citation
[2022] EUECJ C-534/20_O
Parties
Employer/respondent: Leistritz AG; Employee/applicant: LH
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Reference (renvoi Préjudiciel) / Opinion of Advocate General Before CJEU Decision
Outcome
Opinion: Article 38(3), second sentence, GDPR does not preclude stricter national protection against DPO dismissal; provision is valid.
Legal Topics
GDPR Article 38, Data Protection Officer, Employment Termination, National Law Vs EU Law, Independence of DPO
European Union Law Labour Law Data Protection GDPR Article 38 Data Protection Officer Employment Termination National Law Vs EU Law Independence of DPO

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leistritz AG

Employer/respondent

LH

Employee/applicant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Reference (renvoi Préjudiciel) / Opinion of Advocate General Before CJEU Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 38(3), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) preclude national law requiring that a Data Protection Officer (DPO) may only be dismissed for serious cause, even if dismissal is unrelated to DPO duties?
  2. 2 Does the answer differ if the DPO appointment is required only by national law, not EU law?
  3. 3 Is Article 38(3), second sentence, of the GDPR valid as a legal basis for such protection, including for DPOs who are employees?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 38(3), second sentence, of the GDPR does not preclude national legislation that provides greater protection against dismissal for DPOs, such as requiring serious cause, even if the dismissal is unrelated to DPO duties. The GDPR sets a minimum standard for DPO independence but does not fully harmonize employment protection, allowing Member States to adopt stricter rules. The provision is valid and based on an adequate legal basis in EU law.

Court Disposition

Opinion: Article 38(3), second sentence, GDPR does not preclude stricter national protection against DPO dismissal; provision is valid.

Orders

  • Article 38(3), second sentence, GDPR does not preclude national law requiring serious cause for DPO dismissal, even if unrelated to DPO duties.
  • The provision applies regardless of whether DPO appointment is required by EU or national law.