Direkte Klagen gegen Beschlüsse des Europäischen Datenschutzausschusses vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof sind unzulässig. Vielmehr muss der Beschluss vor dem nationalen Gericht angefochten werden, der dem Gerichtshof dann ein Vorabentscheidungsersuchen vorlegen kann (EuG, Beschl. v. 07.12.2022 - Az.: T-709/21).
WhatsApp wollte sich gerichtlich gegen einen Beschluss des Europäischen Datenschutzausschusses wehren, in dem es um die datenschutzrechtliche Bewertung zum Instant Messanger ging.
Das Unternehmen griff die Äußerungen mit einer direkten Klage vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof an.
Das Gericht entschied nun, dass eine solche direkte Klageerhebung unzulässig sei. Vielmehr müsse Beschluss vor einem nationalen Gericht angegriffen werden. Im Rahmen eines Vorabentscheidungsersuchen könne das nationale Gericht dann den EuGH einschalten:
"Next, the Court observes that WhatsApp is not directly concerned by the contested decision. In order to be of direct concern to an applicant who is not an addressee of a measure, that measure must, first, directly affect that applicant’s legal situation and, second, leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being automatic and resulting from EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules.
As regards the first of those conditions, the Court recalls that the contested decision is not enforceable against WhatsApp in a way that would allow it, without further procedural steps, to be a source of obligations for WhatsApp or, as the case may be, rights for other individuals. In the present case, the contested decision is not the final step of the full procedure provided for by the GDPR."
Und weiter:
"With regard to the second of those conditions, the Court finds that, even though the contested decision was binding on the Irish supervisory authority as regards the aspects to which it related, it left a measure of discretion to that authority as to the content of the final decision, which also covers other aspects, in particular as regards the amount of the administrative fines.
Lastly, the Court notes that the inadmissibility of WhatsApp’s action before it against the contested decision is consistent with the logic of the system of judicial remedies established by the TEU and the TFEU. More specifically, the TFEU, in particular by providing for the possibility of bringing a direct action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union or of making a request to the latter for a preliminary ruling, has established a complete system of legal remedies designed to ensure judicial review of the legality of acts of the European Union, in which the national courts also participate. Under that system, where persons cannot, by reason of the conditions for admissibility, directly challenge EU acts before the Courts of the European Union, they are able to plead, by way of a plea of illegality, the invalidity of such an act before the national court, which, in turn, is able to make a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling."