GuiGui's Show

Rejet, par le Tribunal de l'UE, du recours du député FR Latombe contre le Data Privacy Framework (DPF). Arrêt ici.

DPRC (prétendu tribunal états-unien idoine au DPF) suffisamment indépendante + la Commission UE suit le cadre juridique états-unien et peut suspendre, modifier ou abroger le DPF + Schrems II n'exige pas un contrôle a priori par une autorité indépendante de la collecte en vrac, donc le contrôle judiciaire a posteriori par la DPRC est suffisant.

Mauvaise nouvelle mais il reste des arguments qui n'ont pas été examinés par le Tribunal de l'UE, comme le limogeage, en janvier 2025, du PCLOB (organe états-unien de surveillance du Renseignement sur lequel se repose largement le CEPD pour comprendre le cadre juridique états-unien) ou l'extension des catégories d'acteurs obligés de coopérer avec les Renseignements par la loi états-unienne RISAA de 2024.

Réaction de NOYB ici :

Latombe challenge admitted. The General Court accepted that Mr. Latombe is directly affected by the EU-US deal, meaning that the lawsuit was formally admissible. This was a contentious issue and could still be challenged by the European Commission on appeal to the CJEU.

The team of Mr. Latombe choose a rather targeted and narrow challenge of the EU-US data deal. […] However, this does not mean that another challenge entertaining a broader set of arguments and issues with the deal wouldn't be successful. […]
[…]
Max Schrems: “This was a rather narrow challenge. We are convinced that a broader review of US law – especially the use of Executive Orders by the Trump administration should yield a different result. We are reviewing our options to bring such a challenge. […]
[…]
[…] The Court for example held, that the new "Data Protection Court of Review" (DPCR) would be independent - when such independence is only guaranteed by a Presidential Executive Order and not by law. Trump right now removes people even when their independence is guaranteed by law.

Max Schrems: "We right now see Trump remove 'independent' heads of the FTC or Federal Reserve. The Court in question is not even established by law, but just but an executive order of the President - and can hence be removed in a Second. It is very surprising that the EU Court would find that sufficient. Comparing this case with inner-EU cases such as on Poland or Hungary, it takes a lot of mental flexibility to accept this as an independent Court."

Latombe a fait appel, devant la CJUE donc. Sources : 1, 2 (à partir de 10 minutes 20). Référence du pourvoi : C-703/25.