A Meta challenge over €265 million fines imposed on it by the Data Protection Commission (DPC) should be adjourned until a decision in a related case is given by an EU court, the High Court has ordered.
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd has brought a statutory appeal over the fines the DPC imposed for breach of EU privacy rules regarding the personal information of about more than 500 million Facebook users.
It also instituted a judicial review challenge to the constitutional validity of the Data Protection Act 2018, with particular reference to the conferral of powers upon a non-judicial body to impose significant financial penalties.
Separately, one of Meta's platforms, WhatsApp Ireland, has brought challenges in Ireland and the EU over the DPC's interpretation of part of the GDPR regulations relating to the assessment of administrative fines.
The General Court of the EU ruled the EU proceedings were inadmissible and WhatsApp then brought an appeal to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). A decision on that appeal is pending.
In the meantime, Meta applied to the High Court to adjourn its proceedings against the DPC over the fines pending the outcome of that WhatsApp EU appeal.
It argued, among other things, that a national court owes an obligation of sincere cooperation to the European court.
When there is a dispute before the national court, which is already the subject of a case which is before the European court, the national court should stay the proceedings before it, it said.
Opposition
The DPC opposed the adjournment initially, saying that the High Court is obliged under EU law to determine domestic proceedings expeditiously. It said the best way to achieve this was by a modular trial.
It said Meta was required to meet a “high threshold” in terms of justifying the imposition of a stay. Meta must demonstrate a “real risk of serious or irreparable damage”, or, at least, a “very real risk of prejudice”, the DPC said.
However, Mr Justice Simons noted in granting the adjournment, that the DPC had latterly agreed with Meta that at least some of the issues raised in the domestic proceedings cannot be determined by the High Court until such time as the EU WhatsApp proceedings have been resolved one way or the other.
The judge found this was not an appropriate case in which to direct a modular trial.
The reasons for this included that the making of an order directing a modular trial would not result in legal effect being given to the DPC’s decision any quicker.
The issues in the domestic proceedings cannot sensibly be separated out because the question of liability and sanction are inextricably bound up together, he said.
A modular trial also runs the risk of prolonging the proceedings because of the potential for fragmented appeals to the Court of Appeal and/or preliminary references to the CJEU, he said.
The length of any adjournment of the domestic proceedings is likely to be short because there is a reasonable prospect of the EU proceedings being disposed of peremptorily in a relatively short period of time, he added.
