Guidelines 9/2020 on relevant and reasoned objection under Regulation 2016/679
Section 2.1 “Relevant”
12. In order for the objection to be considered as “relevant”, there must be a direct connection between the objection and the draft decision at issue. More specifically, the objection needs to concern either whether there is an infringement of the GDPR or whether the envisaged action in relation to the controller or processor complies with the GDPR.
13. Consequently, the objection raised fulfils the criterion of being “relevant” when, if followed, it would entail a change leading to a different conclusion as to whether there is an infringement of the GDPR or as to whether the envisaged action in relation to the controller or processor, as proposed by the LSA, complies with the GDPR. There must always be a link between the content of the objection and such potential different conclusion as further explained below. While it is possible for the objection to signal a disagreement on both elements, the existence of only one of them would be sufficient to meet the conditions for a relevant objection.
14. An objection should only be considered relevant if it relates to the specific legal and factual content of the draft decision. Raising only abstract or broad comments or objections cannot be considered relevant in this context.
15. Likewise, minor disagreements on the wording or regarding the legal reasoning that does not relate to the possible existence of the infringement nor to the compliance of envisaged action in relation to the controller or processor with the GDPR.
16. The reasoning underlying the conclusions reached by the LSA in the draft decision can be the subject to an objection, but only insofar as such reasoning is linked with the conclusion as to whether there is an infringement – or whether the infringement of the GDPR has been correctly identified – or with the envisaged action, and to the extent that the whole Article 4 (24) threshold as described in this document is met.