Right to Be Heard under DSA
This topic is needed to specifically address the procedural right to be heard in DSA contexts, which is distinct from general complaint rights and encompasses the right to present one's case before decisions are made.
right to be heard procedural fairness hearing rights due process administrative hearing opportunity to respond defense rights procedural safeguards
Overview
Legal Framework
The procedural right to be heard is a fundamental principle underpinning the Digital Services Act (DSA), derived from the general principles of Union law and explicitly referenced in Recitals 116 and 140. These recitals frame the right within the context of enforcement actions by competent authorities and the Commission, ensuring respect for the rights of defence and the right to a fair trial. The law requires that, before adopting any enforceable decision that would adversely affect a provider of intermediary services, the relevant authority must grant that provider the opportunity to present its views on the preliminary findings.
Practical Application
This right is interpreted as a core procedural safeguard that must be integrated into the DSA's enforcement architecture. While the DSA's operative articles detail specific notification and hearing procedures for certain decisions (e.g., Article 73 for Commission decisions against Very Large Online Platforms), the principle applies broadly to all enforcement actions by Digital Services Coordinators and the Commission. The right entails being informed of the preliminary conclusions and the evidence supporting them, and being given a meaningful period to respond in writing or, where appropriate, orally. This process is distinct from a user's right to complain and is a prerequisite for a valid administrative sanction or remedial order.
Key Considerations
- Proactive Process Integration: Organizations must have internal procedures to immediately escalate and coordinate a formal response upon receipt of a "statement of objections" or preliminary findings from an authority.
- Evidence-Based Response: The right to be heard is a right to rebut the authority's case; responses must be comprehensive and evidence-driven, addressing both factual allegations and legal classifications.
- Timing is Critical: Strict adherence to procedural deadlines set by the authority is essential, as failure to respond may be deemed a waiver of the right, allowing the authority to proceed to a final decision.
Laws (4)
Guidance (7)
Richtsnoeren 02/2022 voor de toepassing van artikel 60 AVG
guidelines voor de toepassing van artikel 60 AVG
Een van de belangrijkste innovaties bij de invoering van de AVG was de introductie van het concept 'één-loketmechanisme'. In gevallen van grensoverschrijdende verwerking is de toezichthoudende autoriteit in de lidstaat van de hoofdvestiging van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke of verwerker de autoriteit die leidinggeeft aan de handhaving van de AVG met betrekking tot de grensoverschrijdende verwerkingsactiviteiten in kwestie. Daarbij wordt samengewerkt met alle autoriteiten die de gevolge...
Guidelines 02/2022 on the application of Article 60 GDPR
Guidelines on the application of Article 60 GDPR
With the introduction of the GDPR, the concept of the one-stop shop was established as one of the main innovations. In cross-border processing cases, the supervisory authority in the Member State of the controller's or processor's main establishment is the authority leading the enforcement of the GDPR for the respective cross-border processing activities, in cooperation with all the authorities which may face the effects of the processing activities at stake: be it through the establishments ...
Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical implementation of amicable settlements
Guidelines on the processing of personal data under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of the provision of online services to data subjects
Guidelines 05/2022 on the use of facial recognition technology in the area of law enforcement
Guidelines on the use of facial recognition technology in the area of law enforcement
More and more law enforcement authorities (LEAs) apply or intend to apply facial recognition technology (FRT). It may be used to authenticate or to identify a person and can be applied on videos (e.g. CCTV) or photographs. It may be used for various purposes, including to search for persons in police watch lists or to monitor a person's movements in the public space. FRT is built on the processing of biometric data , therefore, it encompasses the processing of special categories ...
Richtsnoeren 05/2022 voor het gebruik van gezichtsherkenningstechnologie in het kader van rechtshandhaving
guidelines gebruik gezichtsherkenning bij rechtshandhaving
Steeds meer rechtshandhavingsinstanties passen gezichtsherkenningstechnologie toe of zijn voornemens deze toe te passen. De technologie kan worden gebruikt om een persoon te authenticeren of te identificeren en kan voor video's (bijv. CCTV) of foto's worden ingezet, maar ook voor andere doeleinden, waaronder het opzoeken van personen op signaleringslijsten van de politie of het volgen van de bewegingen van een persoon in de openbare ruimte. Gezichtsherkenningstechnologie is gebaseer...
Richtsnoeren 03/2021 voor de toepassing van artikel 65, lid 1, punt a), AVG
guidelines voor de toepassing van artikel 60 AVG
Guidelines 03/2021 on the application of Article 65(1)(a) GDPR
Guidelines on the application of Article 60 GDPR