This is one of noyb 101 complaints which were filed after the "Schrems II" judgement in Summer 2020. The judgement invalidated the EU-US data transfer mechanism "Privacy Shield". The cases were generated based on implemented Google Analytics or Facebook tracking code on websites by EU providers, which leads to unlawful data transfers to the United States.
| Date | Summary |
|---|---|
| 06.09.2024 | Decision litigation chamber BE DPA |
| 12.07.2024 | noyb sends comments regarding transcripts of the hearing |
| 26.06.2024 | DPA shares link for hybrid hearing |
| 24.06.2024 | DPA acknowledges receipt of submission of both controllers |
| 21.06.2024 | second Google submission Google filed a second submission, replying to noyb's statement regarding procedural issues. |
| 21.06.2024 | second controller statement The controller filed a second statement, replying to noyb's submission regarding procedural issues. |
| 17.06.2024 | noyb requests to join hearing remotely |
| 29.05.2024 | noyb statement to procedural issues noyb filed a statement to the procedural issues after the controller and processor filed their respective statement. |
| 10.05.2024 | Google statement to procedural issues Google submits it statement to the procedural issues of the case |
| 10.05.2024 | controller statement to procedural issues controller submitted its statement to the procedural issues of the case |
| 29.03.2024 | GBA prolongs deadlines Letter from GBA prolonging the deadline for all parties to the proceeding for the statements regarding the procedural issues. |
| 20.03.2024 | access to case file DPA provides access to case file |
| 13.03.2024 | Mail from litigationchamber litigation chamber provided us with a report and asked us to provide a statement regarding the procedural aspects of the filing of the complaint. |
| 12.07.2023 | noyb called the Belgian DPA to request update The investigation service finished the investigation and transmitted the report to the litigation chamber which will now handle the case. |
| 08.12.2021 | Belgian DPA replied to our letter Belgian DPA replied to our letter, insisting in confidentiality and stating that they will not dicuss the matter of confidentiality with us. We will be heard when the matter is at the litigation chamber. |
| 12.11.2021 | noyb sends a reply letter to the DPA |
| 11.10.2021 | The Inspection Service of the Belgian DPA sends noyb a letter in English re all four complaints filed with them The Inspection Service of the Belgian DPA sent us a letter (in English) re all four complaints filed with them: Their competence still seems to be subject of investigation. noyb will be drafting a letter in French to seek clarification on competence. |
| 14.07.2021 | Belgium DPA sent us a letter hinting that they are still unsure regarding their competence Belgium DPA sent us a letter, hinting that they are still unsure regardingtheir compentence, that the investigation is ongoing and that we cannot get access to the files of the case. |
| 13.07.2021 | noyb asked the Belgium DPA for an update |
| 09.11.2020 | Belgium DPA sent a letter stating that they cannot confirm being LSA yet Belgium DPA sent a letter, stating that they cannot confirm lead LSA yet and that they are unable to grant us access to document, quoting "the Act of 3 December 2017". State that they will communicate our exchange to other DPAs. |
| 05.11.2020 | Belgium DPA replied stating that complaints were declared admissible Belgium DPA replied, stating that complaints were declared admissible on 25.08.2020 and forwarded to the DPA Litigation Chamber. Litigation Chamber has now decided to request an investigation from the DPA Inspection Service. |
| 29.10.2020 | noyb sends follow up email asking for an update |
| 25.08.2020 | noyb replied explaining how to open HAR files |
| 24.08.2020 | Belgium DPA asked to be provided with the attachments as PDF |
| 17.08.2020 | Complaint |