The Termination of the Employment Contract of a Data Protection Officer under GDPR: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Leistritz AG v LH (C-534/20)

Q3 Social Sciences
Paweł Fajgielski
{"title":"The Termination of the Employment Contract of a Data Protection Officer under GDPR: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Leistritz AG v LH (C-534/20)","authors":"Paweł Fajgielski","doi":"10.17951/sil.2023.32.2.335-345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the judgment in question, the Court of Justice of the European Union rules that Article 38 (3) GDPR does not preclude national legislation which provides that a termination of the employment contract of a data protection officer is allowed only with just cause, even if the termination is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation. In the approving commentary, based on the theses contained in the judgment, the reasons related to the performance of the data protection officer tasks and other reasons for the inspector’s dismissal are discussed. Doubts related to the dismissal of the data protection officer due to the reorganization of the company are also highlighted. The issue of dismissal of the data protection officer is of great practical importance, the considerations and conclusions presented in the commentary may be helpful for many controllers.","PeriodicalId":36157,"journal":{"name":"Studia Iuridica Lublinensia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Iuridica Lublinensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.2.335-345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the judgment in question, the Court of Justice of the European Union rules that Article 38 (3) GDPR does not preclude national legislation which provides that a termination of the employment contract of a data protection officer is allowed only with just cause, even if the termination is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation. In the approving commentary, based on the theses contained in the judgment, the reasons related to the performance of the data protection officer tasks and other reasons for the inspector’s dismissal are discussed. Doubts related to the dismissal of the data protection officer due to the reorganization of the company are also highlighted. The issue of dismissal of the data protection officer is of great practical importance, the considerations and conclusions presented in the commentary may be helpful for many controllers.
根据GDPR终止数据保护官员的雇佣合同:欧盟法院在Leistritz AG诉LH(C-534/20)一案中的判决评论
在该判决中,欧盟法院裁定,《通用数据保护条例》第38条第(3)款不排除国家立法规定,只有在有正当理由的情况下才允许终止数据保护官员的雇佣合同,即使终止与该官员的任务执行无关,只要此类立法不妨碍实现该条例的目标。在批准评注中,根据判决中包含的论点,讨论了与数据保护官员执行任务有关的原因以及检查员被解雇的其他原因。与因公司重组而解雇数据保护官员有关的疑虑也突显出来。解雇数据保护官员的问题具有重大的现实意义,评注中提出的考虑因素和结论可能对许多控制者有所帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信