Henrik Dahl

Text proposed by the Commission

(27) This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides that personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. In order to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. Taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the definition of personal data, it is necessary to provide further clarity on when a natural person should be considered to be identifiable. The existence of additional information enabling the data subject to be identified does not, in itself, mean that pseudonymised data must be regarded as constituting, in all cases and for every person or entity, personal data for the purposes of the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, it should be clarified that information is not to be considered personal data for a given entity where that entity does not have means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. A potential subsequent transmission of that information to third parties who have means reasonably allowing them to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, renders that information personal data only for those third parties who have such means at their disposal. An entity for which the information is not personal data, in principle, does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In this respect the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that a means of identifying the data subject is not reasonably likely to be used where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant, in that the identification of that data subject is prohibited by law or impossible in practice, for example because it would involve a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and labour. An example of a prohibition against reidentification can be found in the obligations of health data users in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council¹⁵ . The Commission, together with the European Data Protection Board, should support controllers in the application of this updated definition by stipulating technical criteria in an implementing act. _________________ ¹⁵ Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 (OJ L, 2025/327, 5.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327/oj)

Amendment

(27) This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides that personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. In order to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. Taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the definition of personal data, it is necessary to provide further clarity on when a natural person should be considered to be identifiable. The existence of additional information enabling the data subject to be identified does not, in itself, mean that pseudonymised data must be regarded as constituting, in all cases and for every person or entity, personal data for the purposes of the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, it should be clarified that information is not to be considered personal data for a given person or entity where that person or entity does not have means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. To ascertain whether means are reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person, account should be taken of all objective factors, such as the costs of and the amount of time required for identification, taking into consideration the available technology at the time of the processing and technological developments. The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. A potential subsequent transmission of that information to third parties who have means reasonably allowing them to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, renders that information personal data only for those third parties who have such means at their disposal. An entity for which the information is not personal data, in principle, does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In this respect the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that a means of identifying the data subject is not reasonably likely to be used where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant, in that the identification of that data subject is prohibited by law or impossible in practice, for example because it would involve a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and labour. An example of a prohibition against reidentification can be found in the obligations of health data users in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council. It should also be clarified that information, which is apparently impersonal, may still be considered personal data if the data subject can be identified with additional information obtained from another person or entity through means reasonably likely to be used making it possible to identify the data subject. In such circumstances, the fact that the information enabling the data subject to be identified is in the hands of other people does not prevent that data subject from being identifiable for the controller. The Court of Justice of the European Union has also held that information which are in themselves impersonal may become personal in nature where the controller puts them, or is likely to put them, at the disposal of other persons or entities who have means reasonably likely to enable the data subject to be identified. It is apparent, in particular, that if that information is put at these other persons or entities’ disposal – then this information is personal data for these persons and entities and, indirectly, for the controller. Accordingly, in so far as it cannot be ruled out that those persons or entities have means reasonably allowing them to attribute pseudonymised data to the data subject, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, the data subject must be regarded as identifiable as regards both that transfer and any subsequent processing of those data by those persons and entities. In such circumstances, pseudonymised data should be considered to be personal data. The Commission, together with the European Data Protection Board, may support controllers in the application of this updated definition by stipulating technical criteria in an implementing act.

noyb's comment:

The Parliament's amendment improves the Commission’s proposal that is meant to introduce a subjective approach to the definition of personal data. However, even with the new protections that this amednment seeks to afford, while it highlights an objective approach, it seems partly contradictory and does not go beyond the current understanding of the GDPR.

#262 Recital 30

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission

(30) Trustworthy AI is key in providing for economic growth and supporting innovation with socially beneficial outcomes. The development and use of AI systems and the underlying models such as large language models and generative video models rely on data, including personal data, in various phases in the AI lifecycle, such as the training, testing and validation phase and may in some instances be retained in the AI system or the AI model. The processing of personal data in this context may therefore be carried out for purposes of a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where appropriate. This does not affect the obligation of the controller to ensure that the development or use (deployment) of AI in a specific context or for specific purposes complies with other Union or national law, or to ensure compliance where its use is explicitly prohibited by law. It also does not affect its obligation to ensure that all other conditions of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as well as all other requirements and principles of that Regulation are met.

Amendment

(30) Trustworthy AI is key in providing for economic growth and supporting innovation with socially beneficial outcomes. The development and use of AI systems and the underlying models such as large language models and generative video models rely on data, including personal data, in various phases in the AI lifecycle, such as the training, testing and validation phase and may in some instances be retained in the AI system or the AI model. The processing of personal data in this context may therefore be carried out for purposes of a legitimate interest of the controller or a third party within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where appropriate. This does not affect the obligation of the controller to ensure that the development or use (deployment) of AI in a specific context or for specific purposes complies with other Union or national law, or to ensure compliance where its use is explicitly prohibited by law. It also does not affect its obligation to ensure that all other conditions of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as well as all other requirements and principles of that Regulation are met.

Justification

This amendment aligns Recital (30) with Article 88c by clarifying that legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR may be pursued by both controllers and third parties. It removes ambiguity for AI supply chains, ensures consistency between the recital and the operative text, and replaces the broad reference to "Article 6" with the more precise reference to Article 6(1)(f), improving legal certainty and coherent interpretation.

noyb's comment:

The amendment does not add/remove something from the Commission's proposal, which generally lowers the level of protection.

#275 Recital 31

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission

(31) When the controller, in the light of the risk-based approach which informs the scalability of the obligations under this Regulation, is balancing the legitimate interest pursued by the controller or a third party and the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject, consideration should be given to whether the interest pursued by the controller is beneficial for the data subject and society at large, which may for instance be the case where the processing of personal data is necessary for detecting and removing bias, thereby protecting data subjects from discrimination, or where the processing of personal data is aiming at ensuring accurate and safe outputs for a beneficial use, such as to improve accessibility to certain services. Consideration should also, among others, be given to reasonable expectations of the data subject based on their relationship with the controller, appropriate safeguards to minimise the impact on data subjects’ rights such as providing enhanced transparency to data subjects, providing an unconditional right to object to the processing of their personal data, respecting technical indications embedded in a service limiting the use of data for AI development by third parties, the use of other state of the art privacy preserving techniques for AI training and appropriate technical measures to effectively minimise risks resulting, for example, from regurgitation, data leakage and other intended or foreseeable actions.

Amendment

(31) When the controller, in the light of the risk-based approach which informs the scalability of the obligations under this Regulation, is balancing the legitimate interest pursued by the controller or a third party and the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject, consideration should be given to whether the interest pursued by the controller is beneficial for the data subject and society at large, which may for instance be the case where the processing of personal data is necessary for detecting and removing bias, thereby protecting data subjects from discrimination, or where the processing of personal data is aiming at ensuring accurate and safe outputs for a beneficial use, such as to improve accessibility to certain services.

noyb's comment:

The propose amendment intends to further decrease data subject rights, specifically the proposed by the Commission unconditional right to object.

#278 Recital 31

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission

(31) When the controller, in the light of the risk-based approach which informs the scalability of the obligations under this Regulation, is balancing the legitimate interest pursued by the controller or a third party and the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject, consideration should be given to whether the interest pursued by the controller is beneficial for the data subject and society at large, which may for instance be the case where the processing of personal data is necessary for detecting and removing bias, thereby protecting data subjects from discrimination, or where the processing of personal data is aiming at ensuring accurate and safe outputs for a beneficial use, such as to improve accessibility to certain services. Consideration should also, among others, be given to reasonable expectations of the data subject based on their relationship with the controller, appropriate safeguards to minimise the impact on data subjects’ rights such as providing enhanced transparency to data subjects, providing an unconditional right to object to the processing of their personal data, respecting technical indications embedded in a service limiting the use of data for AI development by third parties, the use of other state of the art privacy preserving techniques for AI training and appropriate technical measures to effectively minimise risks resulting, for example, from regurgitation, data leakage and other intended or foreseeable actions.

Amendment

(31) When the controller, in the light of the risk-based approach which informs the scalability of the obligations under this Regulation, is balancing the legitimate interest pursued by the controller or a third party and the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject, consideration should be given to whether the interest pursued by the controller is beneficial for the data subject and society at large, which may for instance be the case where the processing of personal data is necessary for detecting and removing bias, thereby protecting data subjects from discrimination, or where the processing of personal data is aiming at ensuring accurate and safe outputs for a beneficial use, such as to improve accessibility to certain services. Consideration should also, among others, be given to reasonable expectations of the data subject based on their relationship with the controller, appropriate safeguards to minimise the impact on data subjects' rights such as providing enhanced transparency to data subjects, ensuring that data subjects are informed of their right to object to the processing of their personal data in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, respecting technical indications embedded in a service limiting the use of data for AI development by third parties, the use of other state of the art privacy preserving techniques for AI training and appropriate technical measures to effectively minimise risks resulting, for example, from regurgitation, data leakage and other intended or foreseeable actions.

Justification

This amendment aligns Recital (31) with Article 88c and the GDPR by removing the reference to an "unconditional right to object." Article 21 GDPR already regulates the right to object with defined conditions and limitations. Keeping the current recital would create inconsistency with the operative provisions, undermine legal certainty, and conflict with the Data Omnibus objective of providing a clear and coherent legal framework.

noyb's comment:

The proposed amendment suggesting to remove the unconditional character of the right to object to AI processing operations diminishes the data subjects' control over their personal data.

#300 Recital 33

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission

(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Amendment

(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including which may include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, such as the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model, and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. The controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing, for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in another Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.

noyb's comment:

This amendment goes further than the Commission's proposal, but in certain aspects takes a step back from the GDPR (e.g. development & operation of AI). Overall mixed direction.

#308 Recital 33

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission

(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Amendment

(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures to mitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, is notified of or itself identifies such data, implement technically and economically feasible measures to cease processing. If cessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the cessation of processing of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require reengineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Justification

This amendment aligns Recital (33) with the revised Article 9(5) by replacing obligations to "avoid" and "remove" special categories of personal data with proportionate duties to mitigate risks and cease processing through technically and economically feasible measures. It ensures consistency between the recital and the operative text, prevents overly restrictive interpretation, and clarifies that controllers must act when such data is identified or reported by third parties.

noyb's comment:

This amendment proposes that the controller only implements measures that are "economically feasible".

#369 Recital 38

Authored by

Text proposed by the Commission

(38) Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides for rules governing the processing of personal data when the data controller makes decisions which have legal effects or similarly significant effects on the data subject, based solely on automated processing. In order to provide greater legal certainty, it should be clarified that decisions based solely on automated processing are allowed when specific conditions are met, as set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. It should also be clarified that when assessing whether a decision is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller, as set out in Article 22(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it should not be required that the decision could be taken only by solely automated processing. This means that the fact that the decision could also be taken by a human does not prevent the controller from taking the decision by solely automated processing When several equally effective automated processing solutions exist, the controller should use the less intrusive one.

Amendment

(38) Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides for rules governing the processing of personal data when the data controller makes decisions which have legal effects or similarly significant effects on the data subject, based solely on automated processing. In order to provide greater legal certainty, it should be clarified that decisions based solely on automated processing are allowed when specific conditions are met, as set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. It should also be clarified that when assessing whether a decision is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller, as set out in Article 22(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it should not be required that the decision could be taken only by solely automated processing. This means that the fact that the decision could also be taken by a human does not prevent the controller from taking the decision by solely automated processing When several equally effective automated processing solutions exist, the controller should use the less intrusive one. The requirement to provide “meaningful information about the logic involved” does not oblige controllers to disclose internal algorithms, proprietary logic, or commercially sensitive business knowledge.

noyb's comment:

The proposed exclusion of, inter alia, “commercially sensitive business knowledge” is contrary to CJEU case law which requires a balancing of interest even for information that is more protected than mere business knowledge.

#940 Article 4 – point 1 – second part (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 4 – point 1 – second part

Text proposed by the Commission

Information relating to a natural person is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity can identify that natural person. Information shall not be personal for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that entity. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates.

Amendment

Information relating to a natural person, depending on the circumstances of the case, is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, in so far as that person or entity cannot identify that natural person to whom the information relates taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that person or entity, Information relating to a natural person is, however, personal data where this information is likely to be put or is put at the disposal of other persons or entities who have the means reasonably likely to enable the data subject to be identified.

noyb's comment:

The amendment improves the Commission's proposal but remains a decrease of protection compared to the current Article 4(1).

#966 Article 4 – point 38 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 4 – point 38

Text proposed by the Commission

(38) “scientific research” means any research which can also support innovation, such as technological development and demonstration. These actions shall contribute to existing scientific knowledge or apply existing knowledge in novel ways, be carried out with the aim of contributing to the growth of society´s general knowledge and wellbeing and adhere to ethical standards in the relevant research area. This does not exclude that the research may also aim to further a commercial interest.

Amendment

(38) “scientific research” means any research which can also support innovation, such as technological development and demonstration. These actions shall contribute to existing scientific knowledge or apply existing knowledge in novel ways, be carried out with the aim of contributing to the growth of society´s general knowledge and wellbeing and adhere to ethical standards in the relevant research area. This does not exclude the research testing or development activity regarding AI systems or AI models prior to their being placed on the market or put into service or the aim to further a commercial interest.

noyb's comment:

Can be read to presume that AI system development is scientific research

#1025 Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point k (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point k

Text proposed by the Commission

(k) processing in the context of the development and operation of an AI system as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 or an AI model, subject to the conditions referred to in paragraph 5.

Amendment

(k) incidental and residual processing in the context of the development, training, testing, deployment and operation of an AI system as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 or an AI model as referred to in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, including for the improvement of such systems or models and of related products or services, subject to the conditions referred to in paragraph 5.

noyb's comment:

This amendment proposes to add the terms incidental and residual to the article but adds the improvement of models or services in the proposed provision.

#1055 Article 9 – paragraph 5 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 9 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

5. For processing referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2, appropriate organisational and technical measures shall be implemented to avoid v the collection and otherwise processing of special categories of personal data. Where, despite the implementation of such measures, the controller identifies special categories of personal data in the datasets used for training, testing or validation or in the AI system or AI model, the controller shall remove such data. If removal of those data requires disproportionate effort, the controller shall in any event effectively protect without undue delay such data from being used to produce outputs, from being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties.

Amendment

5. For processing referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2, appropriate organisational and technical measures shall be implemented to avoid and mitigate the risk of the collection and otherwise processing of special categories of personal data. Where, despite the implementation of such measures, the is notified of or identifies special categories of personal data relating to specific data subjects in the aforementioned datasets used for training, testing or validation or in the AI system or AI model, the controller shall implement technically and economically feasible measures to cease processing of those special categories of personal data for the purpose of training or developing an AI system or AI model. If cessation of processing requires disproportionate effort, the controller shall in any event effectively protect without undue delay such data from being used to produce outputs, from being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties.

Justification

This amendment makes Article 9(5) more practical by replacing the obligation to "avoid" processing special categories of personal data with a proportionate duty to mitigate risks through appropriate technical and organisational measures. It clarifies that controllers must act when such data is identified or reported, and, where deletion is disproportionate, apply technically and economically feasible safeguards. The amendment preserves strong data protection while ensuring legal certainty and practical implementation.

noyb's comment:

The amendment proposes for the controllers only to implement economically feasible measures, thereby proposing a more relaxed approach than the Commission's proposal.

#1061 Article 9 – paragraph 5 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 9 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

5. For processing referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2, appropriate organisational and technical measures shall be implemented to avoid v the collection and otherwise processing of special categories of personal data. Where, despite the implementation of such measures, the controller identifies special categories of personal data in the datasets used for training, testing or validation or in the AI system or AI model, the controller shall remove such data. If removal of those data requires disproportionate effort, the controller shall in any event effectively protect without undue delay such data from being used to produce outputs, from being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties.

Amendment

5. For processing referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2, appropriate organisational and technical measures shall be implemented to avoid v the collection and otherwise processing of special categories of personal data. Where, despite the implementation of such measures, the controller identifies special categories of personal data that are incidentally and residually involved in the datasets used for training, testing or validation or in the AI system or AI model, the controller shall remove such data without undue delay. If removal of those data requires manifestly disproportionate effort, the controller shall without undue delay and in any event, effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, used to produce outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties.

noyb's comment:

Improvement versus COM proposal, but overall still more permissive than current GDPR.

#1089 Article 12 – paragraph 5 – last subparagraph (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – last subparagraph

Text proposed by the Commission

The controller shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the request is manifestly unfounded or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is excessive.

Amendment

deleted

noyb's comment:

The amendment removes the burden of proof of controllers, it goes further than the Commission's proposal.

#1110 Article 13 – paragraph 4 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply where the personal data have been collected in the context of a clear and circumscribed relationship between data subjects and a controller exercising an activity that is not data-intensive and there are reasonable grounds to assume that the data subject already has the information referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1, unless the controller transmits the data to other recipients or categories of recipients, transfers the data to a third country, carries out automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1), or the processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects within the meaning of Article 35.

Amendment

4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply where the personal data have been collected in the context of a clear and circumscribed relationship between data subjects and a controller exercising an activity that is not data-intensive and there are reasonable grounds to assume that the data subject already has the information referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1, carries out automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1), or the processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects within the meaning of Article 35.

noyb's comment:

This proposal builds on the Commission's proposal but deletes one of the safeguards. Compared to the current version, this proposal still provides for more complexity and legal uncertainty. A lack of information typcially violates the "fairness" principle in Article 8(2) of the Charter.

#1111 Article 13 – paragraph 4 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply where the personal data have been collected in the context of a clear and circumscribed relationship between data subjects and a controller exercising an activity that is not data-intensive and there are reasonable grounds to assume that the data subject already has the information referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1, unless the controller transmits the data to other recipients or categories of recipients, transfers the data to a third country, carries out automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1), or the processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects within the meaning of Article 35.

Amendment

4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply where and insofar as the data subject already has the information or where the personal data have been collected in the context of a clear and circumscribed relationship between data subjects and a controller exercising an activity that is not a high risk to the data subject and there are reasonable grounds to assume that the data subject already has the information referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 1, unless the controller transmits the data to other recipients or categories of recipients, transfers the data to a third country, carries out automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1), or the processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects within the meaning of Article 35.

noyb's comment:

Small amendments to the Commission's proposal. Mainly clarifying that the proposal provides for an additional exemption. A lack of information typcially violates the "fairness" principle in Article 8(2) of the Charter.

#1125 Article 13 – paragraph 5 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 13 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

5. When the processing takes place for scientific research purposes and the provision of information referred to under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Article 89(1) or in so far as the obligation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing, the controller does not need to provide the information referred to under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. In such cases the controller shall take appropriate measures to protect the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests, including making the information publicly available.

Amendment

5. When the processing takes place for scientific research purposes and the provision of information referred to under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort, including cases where the change of purpose could not have been anticipated at the time of collection, subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Article 89(1) or in so far as the obligation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing, the controller does not need to provide the information referred to under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. In such cases the controller shall take appropriate measures to protect the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests, including making the information publicly available

noyb's comment:

This proposal builds upon the Commission's proposal, but apparently even tries to broaden the scope of the exemption. It may violate the purpose limitation and fairness principle in Article 8(2) of the Charter.

#1179 Article 33 – paragraph 1 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a)

Authored by

Alice Teodorescu Måwe

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

1. In the case of a personal data breach that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 96 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach via the single-entry point established pursuant to Article 23a of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55 and Article 56. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within 96 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.

Amendment

1. In the case of a personal data breach that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 96 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach via the national entry point established pursuant to Article 23a of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55 and Article 56 of this Regulation. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within 96 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.

noyb's comment:

No material changes compared to Commission's proposal.

#1181 Article 33 – paragraph 1 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 33 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

1. In the case of a personal data breach that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 96 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach via the single-entry point established pursuant to Article 23a of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55 and Article 56. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within 96 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.

Amendment

1. In the case of a personal data breach that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 96 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach via the national entry point established pursuant to Article 23a of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55 and Article 56 of this Regulation. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within 96 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.

noyb's comment:

Apparently, no material changes to the Commission's proposal.

#1236 Article 35 – paragraph 9 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new))

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 35 – paragraph 9

Present text

9. Where appropriate, the controller shall seek the views of data subjects or their representatives on the intended processing, without prejudice to the protection of commercial or public interests or the security of processing operations.

Amendment

"deleted"

noyb's comment:

This amendment deletes the controller’s obligation to seek input from the perspective of the data subjects affected by the intended processing. Lowering the level of data protection but reducing the workload for controllers.

#1257 Article 41a – paragraph 1 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 41a – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

(1) The Commission may adopt implementing acts to specify means and criteria to determine whether data resulting from pseudonymisation no longer constitutes personal data for certain entities.

Amendment

(1) The Commission may adopt implementing acts to specify means and criteria to determine when data:

noyb's comment:

Amendment incomplete.

#1260 Article 41a – paragraph 1 – subparagraphs a, b, c (new) (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 41a – paragraph 1 – subparagraphs a, b, c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) In Article 41a, paragraph 1, the following subparagraphs a, b, c are added: '(a) is merely transitory in nature; (b) is unrelated to the data subject as an identified or identifiable natural person; (c) has appropriate technical and/or organisational safeguards to prevent any use for a purpose related to the data subject as an identified or identifiable natural person.'

noyb's comment:

Does not add anything material towards the Commission's proposal. The proposal stays overall as a decrease of protection for data subjects' fundamental rights. Such decisions are typcially reserved to SAs under Article 8(3) of the Charter.

#1278 Article 41a – paragraph 2 – point b (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 41a – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

(b) develop criteria and or categories for controllers and recipients to assess the risk of re-identification in relation to typical recipients of data.

Amendment

(b) develop criteria and or categories for controllers and recipients to assess the risk of data being used for a purpose related to the data subject as an identified or identifiable natural person.

noyb's comment:

Does not bring material change in regards to the Commision's proposal. The proposal stays overall as a decrease of protection for data subjects' fundamental rights. Such decisions are typcially reserved to SAs under Article 8(3) of the Charter.

#1290 Article 41a – paragraph 3 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 41a – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

(3) The implementation of the means and criteria outlined in an implementing act may be used as an element to demonstrate that data cannot lead to reidentification of the data subjects.

Amendment

(3) The implementation of the means and criteria outlined in an implementing act may be used as an element to demonstrate that data cannot be used for any purpose related to the data subjects as an identified or identifiable natural person.

noyb's comment:

Does not bring material change in regards to the Commission's proposal. The proposal stays overall as a decrease of protection for data subjects' fundamental rights. Such decisions are typcially reserved to SAs under Article 8(3) of the Charter.

#1302 Article 41b (new) (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new))

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 41b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10a. The following Article 41b is inserted: 'Article 41b Application of pseudonymisation and identification of a natural person (1) Controllers and processors may apply pseudonymisation, and anonymisation, or other Privacy Enhancing Technologies referred to in Article 25a to personal data in order to reduce the risks to the data subjects concerned and to help meet their obligations under this Regulation, in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information. To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, including through personal data having undergone pseudonymisation, account shall be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used, such as singling out or online identifiers, either by the controller or by another person to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. (2) Paragraph 1 is without prejudice to other provisions and obligations applicable to the controller and processor, including under Chapter IV and V of this Regulation. (3) The Board shall issue an opinion, in accordance with Article 64(2) of this Regulation, addressing the application of pseudonymisation and anonymisation to personal data, including related technical and organisational measures, and specifying means and criteria to determine whether and when such may effectively prevent persons other than the controller from identifying a data subject, in such a way that, for them, the data subject is not or is no longer identifiable, and where information relating to the data subject no longer constitutes personal data for that person other than the controller. (4) The Chair of the Board shall request the opinion referred to in paragraph 3 no later than 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. The opinion shall be reviewed and updated where necessary. (5) The Commission may adopt implementing acts specifying technical and organisational criteria, methodologies and standards where necessary to ensure uniform conditions for the application of paragraphs 1 and 3, or where further clarity is required following the issuance of the opinion referred to in paragraph 3, The Commission shall closely involve the EDPB in the preparations of the implementing acts. The EPDB shall issue an opinion on the draft implementing acts within a deadline of 8 weeks as of the receipt of the draft from the Commission. The Implementing Acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(3).'

noyb's comment:

The amendment improves the Commission's proposal but remains a decrease of protection compared to the current Article 4(1) and Article 4(5).

#1333 Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point hc (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point hc

Text proposed by the Commission

(hc) prepare and transmit to the Commission a proposal for a common template for notifying a personal data breach to the competent supervisory authority as well as for a list of the circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person pursuant to Article 33

Amendment

(hc) prepare and transmit to the Commission a proposal for a common template for notifying a personal data breach to the competent supervisory authority as well as for a list of the circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person pursuant to Article 33 and a list of the circumstances in which it is not likely to result in a high risk.

noyb's comment:

This amendment seems to follow some considerations of the EDPB/EDPS opinion and the shift of competences to the EDPB. In addtion, it adds another list, providing fo additional guidance.

#1387 Article 88a – paragraph 3 – point b (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88a – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

(b) providing a service explicitly requested by the data subject;

Amendment

(b) providing a service or the maintenance of a user session explicitly requested by the data subject;

noyb's comment:

Broadens the exception and does not provide additional legal certainty, given that a user session can be used for many different purposes (from necessary elements to ads).

#1450 Article 88b (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88b

Text proposed by the Commission

Article 88b

Amendment

deleted (The amendment seeks to delete the whole Article 88b)

noyb's comment:

Undoes the positive Commission proposal.

#1567 Article 88c – paragraph 1 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88c – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the interests of the controller in the context of the development and operation of an AI system as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 or an AI model, such processing may be pursued for legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where appropriate, except where other Union or national laws explicitly require consent, and where such interests are overridden by the interests, or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

Amendment

Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the interests of the controller or a third party in the context of the development and operation of an AI system as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 or an AI model, such processing may be pursued for legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where appropriate, and where such interests are overridden by the interests, or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

Justification

This amendment aligns Article 88c with the GDPR by recognising the legitimate interests of both controllers and third parties, avoiding unnecessary restrictions on AI supply chains. It removes references that could reintroduce divergent national rules on consent and an "unconditional right to object," which is already governed by Article 21 GDPR. The amendment preserves data protection while improving legal certainty, consistency, and Single Market harmonisation.

noyb's comment:

The amendment rephrases the Commission's proposal and removes the mention of consent required by other laws.

#1586 Article 88c – paragraph 2 (Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15)

Authored by

Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Article 88c – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Any such processing shall be subject to appropriate organisational, technical measures and safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject, such as to ensure respect of data minimisation during the stage of selection of sources and the training and testing of AI an system or AI model, to protect against non-disclosure of residually retained data in the AI system or AI model to ensure enhanced transparency to data subjects and providing data subjects with an unconditional right to object to the processing of their personal data.

Amendment

Any such processing shall be subject to appropriate organisational, technical measures and safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject, such as to ensure respect of data minimisation during the stage of selection of sources and the training and testing of an AI system or AI model, to protect against non-disclosure of residually retained data in the AI system or AI model to ensure enhanced transparency to data subjects and providing data subjects with right to object to the processing of their personal data in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Justification

This amendment aligns Article 88c with the GDPR by recognising the legitimate interests of both controllers and third parties, avoiding unnecessary restrictions on AI supply chains. It removes references that could reintroduce divergent national rules on consent and an "unconditional right to object," which is already governed by Article 21 GDPR. The amendment preserves data protection while improving legal certainty, consistency, and Single Market harmonisation.

noyb's comment:

The amendment pushes against an unconditional right to object.