Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Text proposed by the Commission

(1) In its Communication on a simpler and faster Europe⁴ , the Commission announced its commitment to an ambitious programme to promote forward-looking, innovative policies that strengthen the Union’s competitiveness and radically lighten the regulatory load for people, businesses and administrations, while maintaining the highest standard in promoting the Union’s values. Consequently, the Commission prioritised the proposal of immediate adjustments to legislation, including digital legislation, to address the competitiveness challenge of the Union. _________________ ⁴ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification, COM(2025)47 final, 11 February 2025

Amendment

(1) In its Communication on a simpler and faster Europe⁴ , the Commission announced its commitment to an ambitious programme to promote forward-looking, innovative policies that strengthen the Union’s competitiveness and radically lighten the regulatory load for people, businesses and administrations, while maintaining the highest standard in promoting the Union’s values. Consequently, the Commission prioritised the proposal of immediate adjustments to legislation, including digital legislation, to address the competitiveness challenge of the Union, without breaching the aforementioned fundamental human rights,  _________________ ⁴ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification, COM(2025)47 final, 11 February 2025

Text proposed by the Commission

(2) Union digital legislation sets high standard in the Union and can be a powerful source of competitive advantage for businesses that abide by the rules, showing a world-leading mark of quality, safety and trustworthiness. Digital regulations have framed the clear rules of the game in the Union for responsible businesses, ensuring fairness and transparency in business-to-business relations, stimulating innovative business models, setting high standard of consumer protection and safety, and for the protection fundamental rights, not least privacy and data protection.

Amendment

(2) Union digital legislation sets high standard in the Union and can be a powerful source of competitive advantage for businesses that abide by the rules, showing a world-leading mark of quality, safety and trustworthiness. Digital regulations have framed the clear rules of the game in the Union for responsible businesses, ensuring fairness and transparency in business-to-business relations, stimulating innovative business models, setting high standard of consumer protection and safety, and for the protection fundamental rights, not least privacy and data protection, the right to life, and the sovereignty and independence of the Member States.

Text proposed by the Commission

(3) Union digital legislation has evolved incrementally over the past years, in response to the rapidly growing footprint of digital technologies in the Union’s economy and societal dynamic, and in view of addressing emerging challenges and promoting business opportunities in the EU. Notwithstanding the Commission’s commitment to a systematic ‘stress test’ of the digital rules, along with other Union rules, which might lead to further regulatory adjustments notably following the forthcoming Digital Fitness Check, as well as other targeted evaluations of digital rules, immediate regulatory changes are necessary. Consequently, this Regulation proposes a first set of amendments to the digital legislative framework, aimed at providing immediate regulatory clarifications that stimulate innovation in the Union market, and that cut administrative compliance costs in particular for businesses, while also streamlining supervisory and administrative costs for supervisory authorities and advisory bodies. The amendments also seek to provide clarity to individuals.

Amendment

(3) Union digital legislation has evolved incrementally over the past years, in response to the rapidly growing footprint of digital technologies in the Union’s economy and societal dynamic, and in view of addressing emerging challenges and promoting business opportunities in the EU. Notwithstanding the Commission’s commitment to a systematic ‘stress test’ of the digital rules, along with other Union rules, which might lead to further regulatory and implementation-related adjustments notably following the forthcoming Digital Fitness Check, as well as other targeted evaluations of digital rules, immediate regulatory changes are necessary. Consequently, this Regulation proposes a first set of amendments to the digital legislative framework, aimed at providing immediate regulatory clarifications that stimulate innovation in the Union market, and that cut administrative compliance costs in particular for businesses, while also streamlining supervisory and administrative costs for supervisory authorities and advisory bodies. The amendments also seek to provide clarity to individuals and respect their fundamental rights and freedoms and the presumption of innocence.

Text proposed by the Commission

(4) Given the foundational role of data in driving value-creation in the digital economy, and pursuant to the objectives of the Communication for a European Data Union Strategy, the amendments presented in this Regulation to the legislative framework regarding data seek to build a coherent and cohesive regulatory framework for the availability and use of data, streamlining and consolidating the data regulatory framework into only two legal acts, namely Regulations (EU) 2016/679⁵ and (EU) 2023/2854⁶ of the European Parliament and of the Council, from currently five different applicable acts. The amendments seek to cut unnecessary administrative costs and stimulate the availability of data as a prerequisite for supporting competitive digital businesses in the Union, while maintaining the highest standard of protections for privacy, personal data protection, and fair business practices, and ensuring core regulatory objectives, including compliance with EU and national competition law. _________________ ⁵ REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) ⁶ REGULATION (EU) 2023/2854 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 December 2023 on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (Data Act)

Amendment

(4) Given the foundational role of data in driving value-creation in the digital economy, and pursuant to the objectives of the Communication for a European Data and Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms Union Strategy, the amendments presented in this Regulation to the legislative framework regarding data seek to build a coherent and cohesive regulatory framework for the availability and use of data, streamlining and consolidating the data regulatory framework into only two legal acts, namely Regulations (EU) 2016/679⁵ and (EU) 2023/2854⁶ of the European Parliament and of the Council, from currently five different applicable acts. The amendments seek to cut unnecessary administrative costs and stimulate the availability of data as a prerequisite for supporting competitive digital businesses in the Union, while maintaining the highest standard of protections for privacy, personal data protection, and fair business practices, and ensuring core regulatory objectives, including compliance with EU and national competition law, without violating the sovereignty and independence of the Member States. _________________ ⁵ REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) ⁶ REGULATION (EU) 2023/2854 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 December 2023 on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (Data Act)

Text proposed by the Commission

(5) Acknowledging the iterative evolution of horizontal and sector-specific rules, it is indispensable to address also overlaps in specific provisions that result in unnecessary duplications of administrative burdens. This is the case in requirements across several rules for reporting following cybersecurity and related incidents, where digital solutions, as proposed in this Regulation, can bring an immediate relief to businesses across all concerned sectors.

Amendment

(5) Acknowledging the iterative evolution of horizontal and sector-specific rules, it is indispensable to address also overlaps in specific provisions that result in unnecessary duplications of administrative burdens. This is the case in requirements across several rules for reporting following cybersecurity and related incidents, where digital solutions, as proposed in this Regulation, can bring an immediate relief to businesses across all concerned sectors, without excluding human and material solutions.

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, while respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms. 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, without fundamental rights and freedoms being affected. 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, while respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms. _________________ 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)

Text proposed by the Commission

(29) It should be reiterated that further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes should be considered to be compatible lawful processing operations. In such cases it is not necessary to ascertain on the basis of Article 6(4) of this Regulation whether the purpose of the further processing is compatible with the purpose for which the personal data are initially collected.

Amendment

(29) It should be reiterated that further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes should be considered to be compatible lawful processing operations, without breaching the fundamental rights and freedoms informed consent of the data subject or their representatives or successors. In such cases it is not necessary to ascertain on the basis of Article 6(4) of this Regulation whether the purpose of the further processing is compatible with the purpose for which the personal data are initially collected, but the period of access to these data, the persons who have access and the appropriate data protection measures must be very clearly specified, in accordance with the applicable laws.

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, without affecting citizens’ jobs, any replacement of a person with AI is strictly forbidden. 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. It is also without prejudice to fundamental human rights and freedoms.

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, without prejudice to traditions, habits and customs or religious beliefs, 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, provided that personal data protection rules are adhered to throughout procedures. 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 and respecting this decision taken by the individual concerned, 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 – situations in which appropriate sanctions must be available.

Text proposed by the Commission

(32) The processing of personal data for scientific research purposes and the application of the GDPR’s provisions on scientific research are conditional on the adoption of appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects, pursuant to Article 89(1) GDPR. To that end, the GDPR balances the right to protection of personal data, pursuant to Article 8 CFREU, with the freedom of science, pursuant to Article 13 CFREU. The processing of personal data for the purpose of scientific research therefore pursues a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provided that such research is not contrary to Union or Member State law. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the controller 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

(32) The processing of personal data for scientific research purposes and the application of the GDPR’s provisions on scientific research are conditional on the adoption of appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects, pursuant to Article 89(1) GDPR. To that end, the GDPR balances the right to protection of personal data, pursuant to Article 8 CFREU, with the freedom of science, pursuant to Article 13 CFREU. The processing of personal data for the purpose of scientific research therefore pursues a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provided that such research is not contrary to Union or Member State law and the informed consent of the data subjects who are the subject of the research has been obtained. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the controller 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.

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 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. The derogation therefore aims to strike a balance between the need to develop and improve artificial intelligence systems and the fundamental obligation to protect data subjects’ rights. It is not a general exception to the protection system established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, but rather a limited and conditional mechanism applicable solely in situations where the presence of data falling under special categories is incidental and unintended. Controllers remain responsible for implementing data protection principles from the design stage and by default (‘privacy by design’ and ‘privacy by default’), as well as for demonstrating compliance with their obligations under data protection legislation. The legal framework thus aims to facilitate innovation in the field of artificial intelligence without detracting from the high level of personal data protection guaranteed in the European Union and without violating data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

Text proposed by the Commission

(34) Biometric data, as defined in Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, means processing of certain characteristics of a natural person through a specific technical means and which allows or confirms the unique identification of that person. The notion of biometric data includes two distinct functions, namely the identification of a natural person or the verification (also called authentication) of his or her claimed identity, both of which rely on different technical processes. The identification process is based on a ‘one-to-many’ search of the data subject’s biometric data in a database, while the verification process is based on a ‘one-to-one’ comparison of biometric data provided by the data subject, who is thereby claiming his or her identity. Derogating from the prohibition to process biometric data under Article 9(1) of the Regulation should also be allowed where the verification of the claimed identity of the data subject is necessary for a purpose pursued by the controller, and suitable safeguards apply to enable the data subject to have sole control of the verification process. For example, where the biometric data are securely stored solely at the side of the data subject or are securely stored at the side of the controller in a state-of-the-art encrypted form and the encryption key or equivalent means is held solely by the data subject, that processing is not likely to create significant risks to his or her fundamental rights and freedoms. The controller does not gain knowledge of the biometric data or only for a very limited time during the verification process.

Amendment

(34) Biometric data, as defined in Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, means processing of certain characteristics of a natural person through a specific technical means and which allows or confirms the unique identification of that person. The notion of biometric data includes two distinct functions, namely the identification of a natural person or the verification (also called authentication) of his or her claimed identity, both of which rely on different technical processes, while respecting and safeguarding fundamental human rights and freedoms and the individual’s consent. The identification process is based on a ‘one-to-many’ search of the data subject’s biometric data in a database, while the verification process is based on a ‘one-to-one’ comparison of biometric data provided by the data subject, who is thereby claiming his or her identity. Derogating from the prohibition to process biometric data under Article 9(1) of the Regulation should also be allowed where the verification of the claimed identity of the data subject is necessary for a well-defined purpose pursued by the controller, and suitable safeguards apply to enable the data subject to have sole control of the verification process. For example, where the biometric data are securely stored solely at the side of the data subject or are securely stored at the side of the controller in a state-of-the-art encrypted form and the encryption key or equivalent means is held solely by the data subject, that processing is not likely to create significant risks to his or her fundamental rights and freedoms. The controller does not gain knowledge of the biometric data or only for a very limited time during the verification process, and the persons within its organisation who access the data must be clearly specified and easily identifiable. Provision must be made for sanctions in the event of malfunctions or data breaches, and fundamental human rights and freedoms and informed consent must be respected and safeguarded.

Text proposed by the Commission

(35) Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides data subjects with the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and certain additional information. The right of access should allow the data subject to be aware of, and to verify, the lawfulness of the processing and enable him or her to exercise his or her other rights under Regulation (EU) 2016/679. By contrast, it should be clarified in Article 12 of the Regulation that the right of access, which is from the outset favourable to data subjects, should not be abused in the sense that the data subjects abuse them for purposes other than the protection of their data. For example, such an abuse of the right of access would arise where the data subject intends to cause the controller to refuse an access request, in order to subsequently demand the payment of compensation, potentially under the threat of bringing a claim for damages. Other examples of abuse include situations where data subjects make excessive use of the right of access with the only intent of causing damage or harm to the controller or when an individual makes a request, but at the same time offers to withdraw it in return for some form of benefit from the controller. Moreover, in order to keep their burden to a reasonable extent, controllers should bear a lower burden of proof regarding the excessive character of a request than regarding the manifestly unfounded character of a request. The reason is that the manifestly unfounded character of a request depends on facts that lie principally within the controller’s sphere of responsibility, whereas the excessive character of a request concerns the possibly abusive conduct of a data subject, which lies primarily outside the controller’s sphere of influence, and therefore the controller may be able to prove such abuse only to a reasonable level. In any event, while requesting access under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the data subject should be as specific as possible. Overly broad and undifferentiated requests should also be regarded as excessive.

Amendment

(35) Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides data subjects with the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed and, where that is the case, the period of access to the personal data and certain additional information. The right of access must allow the data subject to be aware of, and to verify, the lawfulness of the processing and enable him or her to exercise his or her other rights under Regulation (EU) 2016/679. By contrast, it should be clarified in Article 12 of the Regulation that the right of access, which is from the outset favourable to data subjects, should not be abused in the sense that the data subjects abuse them for purposes other than the protection of their data. For example, such an abuse of the right of access would arise where the data subject intends to cause the controller to refuse an access request, in order to subsequently demand the payment of compensation, potentially under the threat of bringing a claim for damages. There is no such thing as abuse when it comes to fundamental human rights and freedoms, informed consent is determined solely by a court, because our primary concern is protecting people, and technology and AI come after that. 

Text proposed by the Commission

(36) Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 requires the data controller to provide the data subject with certain information on the processing of his or her personal data as well as certain further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing, as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of that provision. According to paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, that obligation does not apply where and insofar as the data subject already has the information. To further reduce the burden of data controllers, without undermining the possibilities of the data subject to exercise his or her rights under Chapter III of the Regulation, this derogation should be extended to situations where the processing is not likely to result in a high risk, within the meaning of Article 35 of the Regulation, 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 in the light of the context in which the personal data have been collected, in particular regarding the relationship between data subjects and the controller. These should be the situations where the context of the relationship between the controller and the data subject is very clear and circumscribed and the controller’s activity is not data-intensive, such as the relationship between a craftsman and their clients, where the scope of processing is limited to the minimum data necessary to perform the service. The controller’s activity is not data-intensive where it collects a low amount of personal data and its processing operations are not complex, which is not the case, for example, in the field of employment. In such circumstances, that is to say when the processing is non data-intensive, non-complex and where the controller collects a low amount of personal data, it should be reasonable to expect, for instance, that the data subject has the information on the identity and contact details of the controller as well as on the purpose of the processing when that processing is carried out for the performance of a contract to which a data subject is a party, or when the data subject has given his or her consent to that processing, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The same should apply to associations and sport clubs where the processing of personal data is confined to the management of membership, communication with members and the organisation of activities. Nevertheless, this derogation from the obligations of Article 13 is without prejudice to the independent obligations of the controller under Article 15 of that Regulation, which applies in case the data subject requests access based on the latter provision. Where the derogation from the obligations of Article 13 does not apply, in order to balance the need for completeness and easy understanding by the data subject, controllers may adopt a layered approach when providing the information required, notably by allowing users to navigate to further information.

Amendment

(36) Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 requires the data controller to provide the data subject with certain information on the processing of his or her personal data as well as certain further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing, as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of that provision. According to paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, that obligation does not apply where and insofar as the data subject already has the information. To further reduce the burden of data controllers, without undermining the possibilities of the data subject to exercise his or her rights under Chapter III of the Regulation, this derogation should be extended to situations where the processing is not likely to result in a high risk, within the meaning of Article 35 of the Regulation, 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 in the light of the context in which the personal data have been collected, in particular regarding the relationship between data subjects and the controller. These should be the situations where the context of the relationship between the controller and the data subject is very clear and circumscribed and the controller’s activity is not data-intensive, such as the relationship between a craftsman and their clients, where the scope of processing is limited to the minimum data necessary to perform the service. The controller’s activity is data-intensive where it collects a low amount of personal data and its processing operations are complex, which is not the case, for example, in the field of employment. In such circumstances, that is to say when the processing is non data-intensive, non-complex and where the controller collects a low amount of personal data, it should not be reasonable to expect, for instance, that the data subject has the information on the identity and contact details of the controller as well as on the purpose of the processing when that processing is carried out for the performance of a contract to which a data subject is a party, or when the data subject has given his or her consent to that processing, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679.At the end of the contract, personal data should be deleted securely from the controller’s system in order to prevent use that is improper and not consented to by the data subject. The same should apply to associations and sport clubs where the processing of personal data is confined to the management of membership, communication with members and the organisation of activities. Nevertheless, this derogation from the obligations of Article 13 is without prejudice to the independent obligations of the controller under Article 15 of that Regulation, which applies in case the data subject requests access based on the latter provision. Where the derogation from the obligations of Article 13 does not apply, in order to balance the need for completeness and easy understanding by the data subject, controllers may adopt a layered approach when providing the information required, notably by allowing users to navigate to further information.

Text proposed by the Commission

(37) Where the processing takes place for the purpose of scientific research and the provision of information to the data subject proves to be impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort it should not be necessary to provide the information provided for under Article 13 of this Regulation. The controller should make reasonable efforts to acquire contact details if they are readily available and acquisition would not require a disproportionate effort. The provision of the information would involve a disproportionate effort in particular where the controller at the time of collection of the personal data did not know or anticipate that it would process personal data for scientific research purposes at a later stage, in which case it may not have easily available contact details of the data subjects. In such situations the controller should inform data subjects indirectly, such as by making the information publicly available. The provision of such information should ensure that as many data subjects concerned as possible are reached. Relevant means to make the information publicly available should be determined depending on the context of the research project and the data subjects involved.

Amendment

(37) Where the processing takes place for the purpose of scientific research and the provision of information to the data subject proves to be impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort it should not be necessary to provide the information provided for under Article 13 of this Regulation. The controller should make reasonable efforts to acquire contact details if they are readily available and acquisition would not require a disproportionate effort. The provision of the information would involve a disproportionate effort in particular where the controller at the time of collection of the personal data did not know or anticipate that it would process personal data for scientific research purposes at a later stage, in which case it may not have easily available contact details of the data subjects. In such situations the controller should inform data subjects indirectly, such as by making the information publicly available. The provision of such information should ensure that as many data subjects concerned as possible are reached. Relevant means to make the information publicly available should be determined depending on the context of the research project and the data subjects involved, provided that these data are adequately protected and that the period of access to these data is specified.

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 and ensure that the data are protected in accordance with current legislation.

Text proposed by the Commission

(39) In order to reduce the burden on controllers while ensuring that supervisory authorities have access to the relevant information and can act on violations of the Regulation, the threshold for notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority under Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be aligned with that of communication of a personal data breach to the data subject under Article 34 of that Regulation. In the case of a data breach that is not likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller should not be required to notify the competent supervisory authority. The higher threshold for notifying a data breach to the supervisory authority does not affect the obligation of the controller to document the breach in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or its obligation to be able to demonstrate its compliance with that Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation. In order to facilitate compliance by controllers and a harmonised approach in the Union, the Board should prepare a common template for notifying data breaches to the competent supervisory authority and a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person. The Commission should take due account of the proposal prepared by the Board and review them, as necessary, prior to adoption. In order to take account of new information security threats, the common template and the list should be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary. The lack of a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person should not affect the obligations of controllers to notify those breaches.

Amendment

(39) In order to reduce the burden on controllers while ensuring that supervisory authorities have access to the relevant information and can act on violations of the Regulation, the threshold for notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority under Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be aligned with that of communication of a personal data breach to the data subject under Article 34 of that Regulation. In the case of a data breach that is not likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller should not be required to notify the competent supervisory authority. The higher threshold for notifying a data breach to the supervisory authority does not affect the obligation of the controller to document the breach in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or its obligation to be able to demonstrate its compliance with that Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation. In order to facilitate compliance by controllers and a harmonised approach in the Union, the Board should prepare a common template for notifying data breaches to the competent supervisory authority and a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person. The Commission should take due account of the proposal prepared by the Board and review them, as necessary, prior to adoption. In order to take account of new information security threats, the common template and the list should be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary. The lack of a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person should not affect the obligations of controllers to notify those breaches. Controllers should continue to carry out, on a case-by-case basis, an assessment of the risks posed by each personal data breach, taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, as well as the likelihood and severity of the impact on the data subjects’ rights and freedoms. If this assessment indicates a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms, controllers should inform data subjects and, where appropriate, the competent supervisory authority, as provided in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, without undue delay.

Text proposed by the Commission

(40) Article 35 of that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 requires controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment where the processing of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The supervisory authorities established pursuant to that Regulation are required to establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations which are subject to the requirement for a data protection impact assessment. In addition, the Regulation provides that supervisory authorities may establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations for which no data protection impact assessment is required. In order to effectively contribute to the aim of convergence of the economies and to effectively ensure free flow of personal data between Member States, increase legal certainty, facilitate compliance by controllers and ensure a harmonised interpretation of the notion of a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, a single list of processing operations should be provided at EU level, to replace the existing national lists. In addition, the publication of a list of the type of processing operations for which no data protection impact assessment is required, which is currently optional, should be made mandatory. The lists of processing operations should be prepared by the Board and adopted by the Commission as an implementing act. In order to facilitate compliance by controllers, the Board should also prepare a common template and a common methodology for conducting data protection impact assessments, to be adopted by the Commission as an implementing act. The Commission should take due account of the proposals prepared by the Board and review them, as necessary, prior to adoption. In order to take account of technological developments, the lists and the common template and methodology should be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary.

Amendment

(40) Article 35 of that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 requires controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment where the processing of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The supervisory authorities established pursuant to that Regulation are required to establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations which are subject to the requirement for a data protection impact assessment. In addition, the Regulation provides that supervisory authorities may establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations for which no data protection impact assessment is required. In order to effectively contribute to the aim of convergence of the economies and to effectively ensure free flow of personal data between Member States, increase legal certainty, facilitate compliance by controllers and ensure a harmonised interpretation of the notion of a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, a single list of processing operations should be provided at EU level, to replace the existing national lists. In addition, the publication of a list of the type of processing operations for which no data protection impact assessment is required, which is currently optional, should be made mandatory. The lists of processing operations should be prepared by the Board and adopted by the Commission as an implementing act. In order to facilitate compliance by controllers, the Board should also prepare a common template and a common methodology for conducting data protection impact assessments, to be adopted by the Commission as an implementing act, as well as possible sanctions for data breaches. The Commission should take due account of the proposals prepared by the Board and review them, as necessary, prior to adoption. In order to take account of technological developments, the lists and the common template and methodology should be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary. In addition, the Commission must regularly monitor the implementation of these provisions, draw up monitoring reports to be sent to Parliament and the Council, and inform them of any necessary revisions. 

Text proposed by the Commission

The storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment and the subsequent processing of such data should be regulated under a single legal framework, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where the subscriber of the electronic communications service or the user of the terminal equipment is a natural person. The amendments presented in this Regulation continue to offer the highest levels of protection for personal data, while simplifying the experiences of data subjects in exerting their rights and expressing their choices online. The amendments concern in particular storage of information in that equipment, accessing or otherwise collecting information from that equipment that entails the processing of personal data through cookies or similar technologies to gain information from the terminal equipment. The relevant rules should also apply regardless of whether the terminal equipment is owned by the natural person or by another legal or natural person.

Amendment

The storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment and the subsequent processing of such data should be regulated under a single legal framework, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where the subscriber of the electronic communications service or the user of the terminal equipment is a natural person. The amendments presented in this Regulation continue to offer the highest levels of protection for personal data, while simplifying the experiences of data subjects in exerting their rights and expressing their choices online, but they should include potential penalties to be applied in the event of an information leak involving personal data or access by persons who are not authorised to access this personal information and data. The amendments concern in particular storage of information in that equipment, accessing or otherwise collecting information from that equipment that entails the processing of personal data through cookies or similar technologies to gain information from the terminal equipment. The relevant rules should also apply regardless of whether the terminal equipment is owned by the natural person or by another legal or natural person.

Text proposed by the Commission

The storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment should continue to be allowed only on the basis of consent. Similar to the approach in Directive 2002/58/EC, this requirement should not preclude storing of personal data, or gaining of access to personal data already stored, in the terminal equipment of a natural person, when that is based on Union or Member State law within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and if it fulfils all conditions of lawfulness laid down in that provision, and is done for the objectives laid down in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Amendment

The storing of personal data, or the gaining of access to personal data already stored, in a terminal equipment should continue to be allowed only on the basis of consent. Similar to the approach in Directive 2002/58/EC, this requirement should not preclude storing of personal data, or gaining of access to personal data already stored, in the terminal equipment of a natural person, when that is based on Union or Member State law within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and if it fulfils all conditions of lawfulness laid down in that provision, and is done for the objectives laid down in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. At the same time, it is important to include potential penalties to be applied in the event of an information leak involving personal data or access by persons who are not authorised to access this personal information and data.

Text proposed by the Commission

For the subsequent processing of personal data for other purpose than those defined in the limitative list, Article 6 and, where relevant, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be applied. It is the responsibility of the controller in the light of the principle of accountability to choose the appropriate legal basis for the intended processing. In order to be able to rely on legitimate interest under Article 6(1), point f, of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as a ground for the subsequent processing of personal data, the controller must show that it pursues the controller’s or third parties’ legitimate interest, the processing is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of that legitimate interest, and the interests or fundamental rights of the data subject do not override the interests pursued by the controller. In this context, controllers should take outmost account of the following elements: whether the data subject is a child; the reasonable expectations of data subject; the impact on the individual either because of the scale of data processed or the sensitivity of the data processed; the scale of the processing at issue in the sense that the processing cannot be particularly extensive either because of their amount or the range of categories of data; the processing should be based on data limited to what is necessary and cannot be based on monitoring of large parts of the online activity of the data subjects; and other relevant factors as appropriate. The processing should not give rise to the continuous monitoring of the data subject’s private life.

Amendment

For the subsequent processing of personal data for other purpose than those defined in the limitative list, Article 6 and, where relevant, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be applied. It is the responsibility of the controller in the light of the principle of accountability to choose the appropriate legal basis for the intended processing. In order to be able to rely on legitimate interest under Article 6(1), point f, of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as a ground for the subsequent processing of personal data, the controller must show that it pursues the controller’s or third parties’ legitimate interest, the processing is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of that legitimate interest, and the interests or fundamental rights of the data subject do not override the interests pursued by the controller. In this context, controllers should take outmost account of the following elements: whether the data subject is a child; the reasonable expectations of data subject; the impact on the individual either because of the scale of data processed or the sensitivity of the data processed; the scale of the processing at issue in the sense that the processing cannot be particularly extensive either because of their amount or the range of categories of data; the processing should be based on data limited to what is necessary and cannot be based on monitoring of large parts of the online activity of the data subjects; and other relevant factors as appropriate. The processing should not give rise to the continuous monitoring of the data subject’s private life, and there should also be potential penalties in the event of information misuse or leaks involving personal data or access by persons who are not authorised to access this personal information and data.

Text proposed by the Commission

(45) Data subjects that have refused a request for consent are often confronted with a new request to give consent each time they visit the same controller’s online service again. This may have detrimental effects to the data subjects which may consent just in order to avoid repeating requests. The controller should therefore be obliged to respect the data subject’s choices to refuse a request for consent for at least a certain period.

Amendment

(45) Data subjects that have refused a request for consent are often confronted with a new request to give consent each time they visit the same controller’s online service again. This may have detrimental effects to the data subjects which may consent just in order to avoid repeating requests. The controller should therefore be obliged to respect the data subject’s choices to refuse a request for consent for at least a certain period. In such cases, a validation or consent request could clarify situations that might add legal uncertainty.

Text proposed by the Commission

(46) Data subjects should have the possibility to rely on automated and machine-readable indications of their choice to consent or refuse a consent request or object to the processing of data. Such means should follow the state of the art. They can be implemented in the settings of a web browser or in the EU Digital Identity Wallet as set out by Regulation (EU) 914/2014, or any other adequate means. Rules set out in this Regulation should support the emergence of market-driven solutions with appropriate interfaces. The controller should be obliged to respect automated and machine-readable indications of data subject’s choices once there are available standards. In light of the importance of independent journalism in a democratic society and in order not to undermine the economic basis for that, media service providers should not be obliged to respect the machine-readable indications of data subject’s choices. The obligation for providers of web browsers to provide the technical means for data subjects to make choices with respect to the processing should not undermine the possibility for media service providers to request consent by data subjects.

Amendment

(46) Data subjects should have the possibility to rely on automated and machine-readable indications of their choice to consent or refuse a consent request or object to the processing of data. Such means should follow the state of the art. They can be implemented in the settings of a web browser or in the EU Digital Identity Wallet as set out by Regulation (EU) 914/2014, or any other adequate means. Rules set out in this Regulation should support the emergence of market-driven solutions with appropriate interfaces. The controller should be obliged to respect automated and machine-readable indications of data subject’s choices once there are available standards. In light of the importance of independent journalism in a democratic society and in order not to undermine the economic basis for that, media service providers should not be obliged to respect the machine-readable indications of data subject’s choices. The obligation for providers of web browsers to provide the technical means for data subjects to make choices with respect to the processing should not undermine the possibility for media service providers to request consent by data subjects. At the same time, data subjects should be able to easily change or withdraw the choices they made by such automated means at any time without being subject to disproportionate procedures or discriminatory effects. The technical standards used for the transmission and interpretation of these indications should be interoperable, open and technologically neutral in order to ensure consistent application of the choices of data subjects and foster a high level of protection of personal data across the Union. These standards should be developed in a transparent and inclusive manner, taking into account technological developments, the need for innovation and the legitimate rights and interests of all parties involved.