P9_TA(2024)0187 – Laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 10 April 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (COM(2023)0348 – C9-0231/2023 – 2023/0202(COD)) (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
Date: 2024-04-10
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: access to information, application of EU law, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, data-processing law, disclosure of information, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, personal data, protection of privacy




C_202501295EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1295


13.3.2025






P9_TA(2024)0187

Laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679


Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 10 April 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (COM(2023)0348 – C9-0231/2023 – 2023/0202(COD))
             (1)


(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(C/2025/1295)


Amendment 1


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(2)


In order to provide for the smooth and effective functioning of the cooperation and dispute resolution mechanism provided for in Articles 60 and 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is necessary to lay down rules concerning the conduct of proceedings by the supervisory authorities in cross-border cases, and by the Board during dispute resolution, including the handling of cross-border complaints. It is also necessary for this reason to lay down rules concerning the exercise of the right to be heard by the parties 
under investigation
 prior to the adoption of decisions by supervisory authorities and, as the case may be, by the Board.












(2)


In order to provide for the smooth and effective functioning of the cooperation and dispute resolution mechanism provided for in Articles 60 and 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is necessary to lay down rules concerning the conduct of proceedings by the supervisory authorities in cross-border cases, and by the Board during dispute resolution, including the handling of cross-border complaints. It is also necessary for this reason to lay down rules concerning the exercise of the right to be heard by the parties prior to the adoption of decisions by supervisory authorities and, as the case may be, by the Board. 
This Regulation thereby aims at protecting the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). To achieve this objective, when applying provisions of this Regulation, all data protection authorities should act in an impartial and independent manner and in accordance with the rule of law, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.











Amendment 2


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 2 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(2a)






This Regulation and Chapter VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 only govern certain elements of the cooperation procedure, when supervisory authorities of more than one Member State participate in the procedure. This Regulation does not apply when a party lodges a complaint directly with a lead supervisory authority in another Member State.











Amendment 3


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 2 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(2b)






The procedural law of each Member State should apply to the supervisory authorities insofar as this Regulation does not harmonise a matter. Some procedural elements, such as the horizontal burden of proof of the controller in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, are already governed by Union law. In line with the primacy of Union law, supervisory authorities should not apply national procedural law where it is in conflict with this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Cooperation among supervisory authorities should not be limited because of differences in national procedural law. Supervisory authorities should make use of all options under applicable national law to allow parties in another Member State to participate in procedures. This may include remote video participation, interpreters or generally available means of communication.











Amendment 4


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(3)


Complaints are an essential source of information for detecting infringements of data protection rules. Defining clear and efficient procedures for the handling of complaints in cross-border cases is necessary since the complaint may be dealt with by a supervisory authority other than the one to which the complaint was lodged.












(3)


Complaints are an essential source of information for detecting infringements of data protection rules. Defining clear and efficient procedures for the handling of complaints in cross-border cases is necessary since the complaint may be dealt with by a supervisory authority other than the one to which the complaint was lodged. 
To this end, it is recommended that an efficient mechanism for communication between supervisory authorities should be created used so as to facilitate rapid and secure sharing of information necessary to resolve complaints in accordance with data protection rules.











Amendment 5


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 4








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(4)


In order to be admissible a complaint should contain certain 
specified
 information. Therefore, in order to assist complainants in submitting the necessary facts to the supervisory authorities, a complaint 
form
 should be provided. The information specified in the 
form
 should be required only in cases of cross-border processing in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, though the 
form
 may be used by supervisory authorities for cases that do not concern cross-border processing. The 
form
 may be submitted electronically or by post
. The submission of the information listed in that form should be a condition for a complaint relating to cross-border processing to be treated as a complaint as referred to in Article 77 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
. No additional information should be required for a complaint to be deemed admissible. It should be possible for supervisory authorities to facilitate the submission of complaints in a user-friendly electronic format and bearing in mind the needs of persons with disabilities
, as long as the information required from the complainant corresponds to the information required by the form and no additional information is required in order to find the complaint admissible
.












(4)


In order to be admissible a complaint should contain certain 
minimum
 information 
about the alleged violation, whether ongoing or past. The cessation of a violation should not be sufficient grounds to reject a complaint
. Therefore, in order to assist complainants in submitting the necessary facts to the supervisory authorities, a complaint 
template
 should be provided. The information specified in the 
template
 should be required only in cases of cross-border processing in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, though the 
template
 may be used by supervisory authorities for cases that do not concern cross-border processing. The 
information
 may be submitted electronically or by post. No additional information should be required for a complaint to be deemed admissible
. Where a complaint does not meet the minimum requirements, the supervisory authority should reject it and inform the complainant about the missing information. The complainant can then resubmit a complete complaint. While the complainant should not be required to contact the party under investigation before submitting a complaint, if the complainant was in contact with the party under investigation before submitting the complaint relating to the same matter, he or she should submit the communication related to that contact
. It should be possible for supervisory authorities to facilitate the submission of complaints in a user-friendly electronic format and bearing in mind the needs of persons with disabilities.









Amendment 6


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(5)


Supervisory authorities are obliged to decide on complaints within a reasonable timeframe. What is a reasonable timeframe depends on the circumstances of each case and, in particular, its context, the various procedural steps followed by the lead supervisory authority, the conduct of the parties in the course of the procedure and the complexity of the case.












(5)


Supervisory authorities are obliged to decide on complaints within a reasonable timeframe. What is a reasonable timeframe depends on the circumstances of each case and, in particular, its context, the various procedural steps followed by the lead supervisory authority, the conduct of the parties in the course of the procedure and the complexity of the case. 
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter require a reasonable overall duration of procedures. Given that this includes judicial remedies under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, procedures before supervisory authorities should typically not take more than nine months, unless exceptional circumstances arise. This Regulation foresees prolongations for delays or disruptions that are outside of the control of the lead supervisory authority. To that end, sufficient funding and staffing should be ensured in order to guarantee a timely and efficient handling of cases that does not affect the right to a good administration.











Amendment 7


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5a)






The direct interaction between Member States’ supervisory authorities and the parties is governed by national procedural law, insofar as Regulation (EU) 2016/679, this Regulation or Union law do not take primacy. In the case of indirect interaction of a lead supervisory authority with a party via another supervisory authority, the latter authority’s procedural law should apply to any direct interaction with the party. In line with Article 56(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a complainant has the right to solely communicate with the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged. This does not prevent the complainant to directly communicate with another supervisory authority, including the lead supervisory authority, which may be more efficient.











Amendment 8


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5b)






To ensure that minimum requirements of fair and efficient procedures are met in all cross-border cases, including in Member States where there is no codified national procedural law, the Regulation sets directly applicable rules based on Article 41 of the Charter.











Amendment 9


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5c)






It should be possible to apply, in accordance with national procedural law applicable to the supervisory authority that the party directly interacts with, strictly necessary and proportionate limitations in relation to the disclosure or the further use of legally protected information, such as personal data or trade secrets protected under Directive (EU) 2016/943



 (1a). This could include the internal deliberations and decision-making of the authority. The least intrusive measures, such as limitation of the use of information or blackening of information should be applied. Parties should always be informed that information was withheld from them, and why.










 






Amendment 10


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 d (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5d)






The lead supervisory authority manages the case in line with this Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and its national procedural law, while fully cooperating with other supervisory authorities in a spirit of common understanding and trust. Other supervisory authorities should provide any relevant information and their views to the lead supervisory authority. The lead supervisory authority should structure the case in an efficient and expedient way taking full account of the views of other supervisory authorities. At the same time, the procedure should be in line with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular the one-stop-shop dispute resolution architecture and the competences of the lead supervisory authority.











Amendment 11


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 e (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5e)






Supervisory authorities may also start additional procedures, for example in the case of systemic or repetitive infringements. This should however, not lead to any interference with the rights of the parties.











Amendment 12


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 f (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5f)






Violations may concern the rights of multiple data subjects, therefore, evidence from procedures may need to be used in other procedures to facilitate an efficient procedure and consistent decision making. In order to objectively assess the amount of non-material damages based on the average data subject, civil courts may benefit from relying on established facts and evidence to determine a claim under Article 82 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.











Amendment 13


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 5 g (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(5g)






Each supervisory authority should define one or more languages that it accepts for incoming information by other supervisory authorities. An additional joint ‘cooperation language’ should be defined which all supervisory authorities must accept for incoming or outgoing information. In case of judicial remedies, the supervisory authority against which a judicial remedy is brought should have the duty to translate all relevant documents to the accepted languages.











Amendment 14


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 6








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(6)


Each complaint handled by a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 57(1), point (f), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 is to be investigated with all due diligence to the extent appropriate bearing in mind that every use of powers by the supervisory authority must be 
appropriate
, 
necessary and
 proportionate in view of ensuring compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679
. It falls within the discretion of each competent authority to decide the extent to which a complaint should be investigated
. While assessing the extent appropriate of an investigation, supervisory authorities should aim to deliver a satisfactory resolution to the complainant, which 
may not necessarily require exhaustively
 investigating all 
possible
 legal and factual elements arising from the complaint, 
but which provides
 an effective 
and quick
 remedy to the complainant
. The assessment of the extent of the investigative measures required could be informed by the gravity of the alleged infringement, its systemic or repetitive nature, or the fact, as the case may be, that
 the complainant 
also took advantage of her or his
 rights under Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(6)


Each complaint handled by a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 57(1), point (f), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 is to be investigated with all due diligence to the extent appropriate bearing in mind that every use of powers by the supervisory authority must be 
effective
, proportionate 
and dissuasive
 in view of ensuring compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. While assessing the extent appropriate of an investigation, supervisory authorities should aim to deliver a satisfactory resolution to the complainant, which 
requires
 investigating all 
relevant
 legal and factual elements arising from the complaint, 
to ensure that a decision can be jointly taken and
 an effective remedy to the complainant 
can be quickly delivered. Without prejudice to the necessity of providing a satisfactory resolution to
 the complainant 
within a short timeframe, supervisory authorities should investigate to a degree that allows them to satisfy themselves as to whether a complaint is indicative of more serious or systemic infringements. Planning the procedure is important to ensure a quick result. Supervisory authorities should not refer to the
 rights under Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 
as a reason to limit the investigation of a complaint
. 
To ensure compliance with Article 47 of the Charter, the handling of a complaint should always lead to an appealable decision. Unless a complaint is withdrawn, it should not be possible for complaints to be closed or otherwise terminated without a decision that can be submitted to judicial review.











Amendment 15


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 7








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(7)


The lead supervisory authority should provide the supervisory 
authority with
 which the complaint was lodged 
with the necessary information on the progress of the investigation for the purpose of providing updates to the complainant
.












(7)


The lead supervisory authority should provide the supervisory 
authorities instant remote access to a joint case file that holds all relevant documents of the case, including all internal or confidential information, as well as a translation of all documents to the cooperation language. In addition, the lead supervisory
 authority 
should actively inform the other supervisory authorities on major changes that may require imminent action or closer attention. Defining clear and efficient procedures for the handling of complaints in cross-border cases is also necessary, since the complaint may be dealt with by a supervisory authority other than the one with
 which the complaint was lodged.









Amendment 16


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 8








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(8)


The competent supervisory authority should provide the 
complainant with
 access to the 
documents on the basis of which the supervisory authority reached a preliminary conclusion to reject fully or partially the complaint
.












(8)


The competent supervisory authority should provide the 
parties with remote
 access to the 
joint case file, but may restrict this right of access under certain circumstances. Such access should allow the use of an effective judicial remedy in line with Article 47 of the Charter
.









Amendment 17


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 9








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(9)


In order for supervisory authorities to bring a swift end to infringements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and to deliver a quick resolution for complainants, supervisory authorities should endeavour, where appropriate, to resolve complaints by amicable settlement. The fact that an individual complaint has been resolved through an amicable settlement does not prevent the competent supervisory authority from pursuing an ex officio case, for example in the case of systemic or repetitive infringements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(9)


In order for supervisory authorities to bring a swift end to infringements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and to deliver a quick resolution for complainants, supervisory authorities should 
be able to
 endeavour, where appropriate, to resolve complaints by amicable settlement 
between the parties. Supervisory authorities should not make the handling of a complaint contingent on participation in an amicable settlement process. Settlements should be able to take the form of a contract between the parties under applicable law, but should bind the authorities
. The fact that an individual complaint has been resolved through an amicable settlement does not prevent the competent supervisory authority from pursuing an ex officio case, for example in the case of systemic or repetitive infringements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. 
However, such an ex officio possibility should not be used to defer decisions on complaints.











Amendment 18


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 10








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(10)


In order to guarantee the effective functioning of the cooperation and consistency mechanisms in Chapter VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is important that cross-border cases are resolved in a timely fashion and in line with the spirit of sincere and effective cooperation that underlies Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The lead supervisory authority should exercise its competence within a framework of close cooperation with the other supervisory authorities concerned. Likewise, supervisory authorities concerned should actively engage in the investigation at an early stage in an endeavour to reach a consensus, making full use of the tools provided by Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(10)


In order to guarantee the effective functioning of the cooperation and consistency mechanisms in Chapter VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is important that cross-border cases are resolved in a timely fashion and in line with the spirit of sincere and effective cooperation that underlies Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The lead supervisory authority should exercise its competence within a framework of close cooperation with the other supervisory authorities concerned. Likewise, supervisory authorities concerned should actively engage in the investigation at an early stage in an endeavour to reach a consensus, making full use of the tools provided by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. 
This should be in line with the ‘one-stop-shop’ mechanism of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and guarantee, where applicable, non-discriminatory treatment of parties, legal certainty and independence of issuing of decisions by the supervisory authorities.











Amendment 19


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 11








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(11)


It is particularly important for supervisory authorities to reach consensus on key aspects of the 
investigation
 as early as possible and prior to the 
communication of allegations to the parties under investigation and
 adoption of the draft decision referred to in Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, thereby reducing the number of cases submitted to the dispute resolution mechanism in Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and ultimately ensuring the quick resolution of cross-border cases.












(11)


It is particularly important for supervisory authorities to reach consensus on key aspects of the 
case via the summary of key issues and comments on that summary
 as early as possible and prior to the adoption of the draft decision referred to in Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, thereby reducing the number of cases submitted to the dispute resolution mechanism in Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and ultimately ensuring the quick resolution of cross-border cases.









Amendment 20


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 12








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(12)


Cooperation between supervisory authorities should be based on open dialogue which allows concerned supervisory authorities to meaningfully impact the course of the investigation by sharing their experiences and views with the lead supervisory authority
, with due regard for the margin of discretion enjoyed by each
 supervisory authority
, including in the assessment of the extent appropriate to investigate a case, and for the varying traditions of the Member States. For this purpose,
 the lead supervisory authority 
should provide concerned supervisory authorities with
 a summary of key issues setting out its preliminary view on the main issues in an investigation. It should be provided at a sufficiently early stage to allow effective inclusion of supervisory authorities concerned 
but at the same time at a stage where the lead supervisory authority’s views on the case are sufficiently mature
. Concerned supervisory authorities should have the opportunity to provide their comments on 
a broad range of questions, such as the scope
 of the 
investigation and the identification of complex factual and legal assessments. Given that the scope of the investigation determines the matters which require investigation by the lead
 supervisory 
authority,
 supervisory authorities should endeavour to achieve consensus as early as possible on the scope of the investigation.












(12)


Cooperation between supervisory authorities should be based on open dialogue which allows concerned supervisory authorities to meaningfully impact the course of the investigation by sharing their experiences and views with the lead supervisory authority
. The
 supervisory authority 
with which a complaint has been lodged or which requests an ex-officio action may provide
 the lead supervisory authority with a summary of key issues setting out its preliminary view on the main issues in an investigation
. The lead supervisory authority should draft the final summary of key issues. The summary of key issues should be part of the joint case file, and should be a living document that is updated by the lead supervisory authority during the course of the procedure
. It should be provided at a sufficiently early stage to allow effective inclusion of supervisory authorities concerned. Concerned supervisory authorities should have the opportunity to provide their comments on 
any update
 of the 
summary of key issues. The
 supervisory 
authorities should be able to raise any dispute with the Board.
 Supervisory authorities should endeavour to achieve consensus as early as possible on the scope of the investigation.









Amendment 21


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 13








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(13)


In the interest of effective inclusive cooperation between all supervisory authorities concerned and the lead supervisory authority, 
the comments of
 concerned supervisory authorities should be concise and worded in sufficiently clear and precise terms to be easily understandable to all supervisory authorities. The legal arguments should be grouped by reference to the part of the summary of key issues to which they relate. 
The comments of supervisory authorities concerned may be supplemented by additional documents
. 
However, a mere reference in the comments of a supervisory authority concerned to supplementary documents cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law or in fact which should feature in the comments. The basic legal and factual particulars relied on in such documents should be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the comment itself.














(13)


In the interest of effective inclusive cooperation between all supervisory authorities concerned and the lead supervisory authority, 
any documents submitted by
 concerned supervisory authorities 
and the parties
 should be concise and worded in sufficiently clear and precise terms to be easily understandable to all supervisory authorities. 
Supervisory authorities may therefore limit the length of submissions by the parties.
 The legal arguments should be grouped by reference to the part of the summary of key issues to which they relate.









Amendment 22


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 14








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(14)


Cases that do not raise contentious issues do not require extensive discussion between supervisory authorities in order to reach a consensus and could, therefore, be dealt with more quickly. When none of the supervisory authorities concerned raise comments on the summary of key issues, the lead supervisory authority should communicate the 
preliminary findings provided for in Article 14
 within 
nine
 months.












(14)


Cases that do not raise contentious issues 
(non-contentious cases)
 do not require extensive discussion between supervisory authorities in order to reach a consensus and could, therefore, be dealt with more quickly. When none of the supervisory authorities concerned raise comments on the summary of key issues, the lead supervisory authority should communicate the 
draft decision
 within 
three
 months 
from the receipt of the complaint
.









Amendment 23


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 15








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(15)


Supervisory authorities should avail of all means necessary to achieve a consensus in a spirit of sincere and effective cooperation. Therefore, if there is a divergence in opinion between the supervisory authorities concerned and the lead supervisory authority regarding the scope 
of a complaint-based investigation
, 
including the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the infringement of which will be investigated, or where the comments
 of the supervisory authorities concerned 
relate to an important change in the complex legal or technological assessment, the concerned authority
 should 
use the tools provided for
 under Articles 61 
and 62 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
.












(15)


Supervisory authorities should avail 
themselves
 of all means necessary to achieve a consensus in a spirit of sincere and effective cooperation. Therefore, if there is a divergence in opinion between the supervisory authorities concerned and the lead supervisory authority regarding the scope 
or procedural issues of a case
, 
the supervisory authorities should raise the matter quickly with the Board. The Board should make the necessary procedural determinations. The Board and supervisory authorities should endeavour to complete ongoing proceedings as quickly as possible. The lead supervisory authority or one
 of the supervisory authorities concerned should 
also be able to request an urgent binding decision of the Board without a request
 under Articles 61 
or 62 having been made
.









Amendment 24


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 16








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(16)






If the use of those tools does not enable the supervisory authorities to reach a consensus on the scope of a complaint-based investigation, the lead supervisory authority should request an urgent binding decision of the Board under Article 66(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. For this purpose, the requirement of urgency should be presumed. The lead supervisory authority should draw appropriate conclusions from the urgent binding decision of the Board for the purposes of preliminary findings. The urgent binding decision of the Board cannot pre-empt the outcome of the investigation of the lead supervisory authority or the effectiveness of the rights of the parties under investigation to be heard. In particular, the Board should not extend the scope of the investigation on its own initiative.










deleted







Amendment 25


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 17








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(17)


To enable the complainant to exercise her or his right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, 
the supervisory authority fully or partially rejecting a
 complaint should 
do so by means of
 a decision which may be challenged before a national court.












(17)


To enable the complainant to exercise her or his right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, 
handling of any
 complaint should 
always lead to
 a decision which may be challenged before a national court.









Amendment 26


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 18








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(18)






Complainants should have the opportunity to express their views before a decision adversely affecting them is taken. Therefore, in the event of full or partial rejection of a complaint in a cross-border case, the complainant should have the opportunity to make her or his views known prior to the submission of a draft decision under Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a revised draft decision under Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or a binding decision of the Board under Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The complainant may request access to the non-confidential version of the documents on which the decision fully or partially rejecting the complaint is based.










deleted







Amendment 27


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 19








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(19)


It is necessary to clarify the division of responsibilities between the lead supervisory authority and the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged in the case of rejection of a complaint in a cross-border case. As the point of contact for the complainant during the investigation, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged should 
obtain the views of the complainant on the proposed rejection of the complaint and should
 be responsible for all communications with the complainant. All such communications should be shared with the lead supervisory authority. Since under Article 60(8) and (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged has the responsibility of adopting the final decision rejecting the complaint
,
 that supervisory authority should also 
have the responsibility of
 preparing the draft decision under Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(19)


It is necessary to clarify the division of responsibilities between the lead supervisory authority and the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged in the case of rejection of a complaint in a cross-border case. As the point of contact for the complainant during the investigation, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged should be responsible for all communications with the complainant. All such communications should be shared with the lead supervisory authority. Since under Article 60(8) and (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged has the responsibility of adopting the final decision 
which needs to comply with its national procedural law,
 rejecting the complaint that supervisory authority should also 
be involved by the lead supervisory authority in
 preparing the draft decision under Article 60(3) 
and any final decision under Article 60(7) to (9)
 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.









Amendment 28


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 21








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(21)


In order to effectively safeguard the right to good administration and the rights of defence as enshrined in the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’),
 including the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, it is important to provide for clear rules on the exercise of this right.












(21)


In order to effectively safeguard the right to good administration and the rights of defence as enshrined in the Charter including the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, it is important to provide for clear rules on the exercise of this right 
for all parties involved in a case
. 
Every party should have the right to decline the right to be heard.











Amendment 29


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 22








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(22)


The rules regarding the administrative procedure applied by supervisory authorities when enforcing Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should ensure that the parties 
under investigation
 effectively have the opportunity to make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts, objections and circumstances put forward by the supervisory authority throughout the procedure, thereby enabling them to exercise their rights of defence. The preliminary findings set out the preliminary position on the alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 following investigation. They thus constitute an essential procedural safeguard which ensures that the right to be heard is observed. The parties 
under investigation
 should be provided with 
the
 documents required to 
defend themselves
 effectively 
and to
 comment on 
the allegations made against them
, by receiving access to the administrative file.












(22)


The rules regarding the administrative procedure applied by supervisory authorities when enforcing Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should ensure that the parties effectively have the 
right to be heard and
 opportunity to make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts, objections and circumstances put forward by the supervisory authority throughout the procedure, thereby enabling them to exercise their rights of defence. The preliminary findings set out the preliminary position on the alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 following investigation. They thus constitute an essential procedural safeguard which ensures that the right to be heard is observed. The parties should be provided with 
all the necessary
 documents required to effectively comment on 
matters relevant to the investigation
, by receiving access to the administrative 
joint case
 file.









Amendment 30


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 23








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(23)




The preliminary findings define the scope of the investigation and therefore the scope of any future final decision (as the case may be, taken on the basis of a binding decision issued by the Board under Article 65(1), point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679) which may be addressed to controllers or processors.
 The preliminary findings should be couched in terms that, even if succinct, are sufficiently clear to enable the parties 
under investigation
 to properly identify the nature of the alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The obligation of giving the parties 
under investigation
 all the information necessary to enable them to 
properly defend themselves
 is satisfied if the final decision 
does not allege that the parties under investigation have committed infringements other than those referred to in the preliminary findings and
 only takes into consideration facts on which the parties 
under investigation
 have had the opportunity of making known their views. The final decision of the lead supervisory authority is not, however, necessarily required to be a replica of the preliminary findings. The lead supervisory authority should be permitted in the final decision to take account of the responses of the parties 
under investigation
 to the preliminary findings, and, where applicable, the revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and the 
Article 65(1), point (a),
 decision resolving the dispute between the supervisory authorities. The lead supervisory authority should be able to carry out its own assessment of the facts and the legal qualifications put forward by the parties 
under investigation
 in order either to abandon the objections when the supervisory authority finds them to be unfounded or to supplement and redraft its arguments, both in fact and in law, in support of the objections which it maintains. 
For example, taking account of an argument put forward by a party under investigation during the administrative procedure, without it having been given the opportunity to express an opinion in that respect before the adoption of the final decision, cannot per se constitute an infringement of defence rights.














(23)


The preliminary findings should be couched in terms that, even if succinct, are sufficiently clear to enable the parties to properly identify the nature of the alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The obligation of giving the parties all the information necessary to enable them to 
be heard
 is satisfied if the final decision only takes into consideration facts on which the parties have had the opportunity of making known their views. The final decision of the lead supervisory authority is not, however, necessarily required to be a replica of the preliminary findings. The lead supervisory authority should be permitted in the final decision to take account of the responses of the parties to the preliminary findings, and, where applicable, the revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and the decision 
by the Board
 resolving the dispute between the supervisory authorities 
under Article 65(1), point (a), of tha Regulation
. The lead supervisory authority should be able to carry out its own assessment of the facts and the legal qualifications put forward by the parties in order either to abandon the objections when the supervisory authority finds them to be unfounded or to supplement and redraft its arguments, both in fact and in law, in support of the objections which it maintains.









Amendment 31


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 24








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(24)


The parties 
under investigation
 should be provided with a right to be heard prior to the submission of a revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or the adoption of a binding decision by the Board pursuant to Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(24)


The parties should be provided with a right to be heard 
at appropriate stages of the procedure, in particular
 prior to the submission of a revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or the adoption of a binding decision by the Board pursuant to Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.









Amendment 32


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 25








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(25)


Complainants should be given the possibility to be associated with the proceedings initiated by a supervisory authority with a view to identifying or clarifying issues relating to a potential infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The fact that a supervisory authority has already initiated an investigation concerning the subject matter of the complaint or will deal with the complaint in an ex officio investigation subsequent to the receipt the complaint does not bar the qualification of a data subject as complainant. 
However, an investigation by a supervisory authority of a possible infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by a controller or processor does not constitute an adversarial procedure between the complainant and the parties under investigation. It is a procedure commenced by a supervisory authority, upon its own initiative or based on a complaint, in fulfilment of its tasks under Article 57(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The parties under investigation and the complainant are, therefore, not in the same procedural situation and the latter cannot invoke the right to a fair hearing when the decision does not adversely affect her or his legal position. The complainant’s involvement in the procedure against the parties under investigation cannot compromise the right of these parties to be heard.














(25)


Complainants should be given the possibility to be associated with the proceedings initiated by a supervisory authority with a view to identifying or clarifying issues relating to a potential infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The fact that a supervisory authority has already initiated an investigation concerning the subject matter of the complaint or will deal with the complaint in an ex officio investigation subsequent to the receipt 
of
 the complaint does not bar the qualification of a data subject as complainant.









Amendment 33


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 25 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(25a)






Notwithstanding the fact that the parties under investigation and the complainant are not in the same procedural situation, there are circumstances in which complainants can be in a position to adduce arguments and evidence during an investigation which can help the progress of the investigation. This is particularly the case in circumstances in which a not-for-profit body, organisation or association has lodged a complaint on behalf of a data subject or on its own initiative under Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Supervisory authorities should facilitate the hearing of such complainants at all stages of the investigation, including ex officio investigations, while also maintaining their independence.











Amendment 34


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 26








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(26)






The complainants should be given the possibility to submit in writing views on the preliminary findings. However, they should not have access to business secrets or other confidential information belonging to other parties involved in the proceedings. Complainants should not be entitled to have generalised access to the administrative file.










deleted







Amendment 35


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 27








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(27)


When setting deadlines for parties 
under investigation and complainants
 to provide their views on preliminary findings, supervisory authorities should have regard to the complexity of the issues raised in preliminary findings
, in order to ensure that
 the parties under investigation and complainants have sufficient opportunity to meaningfully provide their views on the issues raised.












(27)


When setting deadlines 
and limiting the length of submissions
 for parties to provide their views on preliminary findings, supervisory authorities should have regard to the complexity of the issues raised in preliminary findings 
as well as the capacity of
 the parties under investigation and complainants 
to respond, in order to ensure that the parties
 have sufficient opportunity to meaningfully provide their views on the issues raised. 
This should however not lead to unduly long procedures.











Amendment 36


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 28








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(28)






The exchange of views prior to the adoption of a draft decision involves an open dialogue and an extensive exchange of views where supervisory authorities should do their utmost to find a consensus on the way forward in an investigation. Conversely, the disagreement expressed in relevant and reasoned objections pursuant to Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which raise the potential for dispute resolution between supervisory authorities under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and delay the adoption of a final decision by the competent supervisory authority, should arise in the exceptional case of a failure of supervisory authorities to achieve a consensus and where necessary to ensure the consistent interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Such objections should be used sparingly, when matters of consistent enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 are at stake, since every use of relevant and reasoned objections postpones the remedy for the data subject. Since the scope of the investigation and the relevant facts should be decided prior to the communication of preliminary findings, these matters should not be raised by supervisory authorities concerned in relevant and reasoned objections. They may, however, be raised by supervisory authorities concerned in their comments on the summary of key issues pursuant to Article 9(3), before preliminary findings are communicated to the parties under investigation.










deleted







Amendment 37


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 29








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(29)


In the interest of the efficient and inclusive conclusion of the dispute resolution procedure, where all supervisory authorities should be in a position to contribute their views and bearing in mind the time constraints during dispute resolution, the form and structure of relevant and reasoned objections should meet certain requirements. Therefore, relevant and reasoned objections should 
be limited to a prescribed length, should
 clearly identify the disagreement with the draft decision and should be worded in sufficiently clear, coherent and precise terms.












(29)


In the interest of the efficient and inclusive conclusion of the dispute resolution procedure, where all supervisory authorities should be in a position to contribute their views and bearing in mind the time constraints during dispute resolution, the form and structure of relevant and reasoned objections should meet certain requirements. Therefore, relevant and reasoned objections should clearly identify the disagreement with the draft decision and should be worded in sufficiently clear, coherent and precise terms.









Amendment 38


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 30








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(30)


Access to the 
administrative
 file 
is
 provided for 
as a part of the rights of defence and
 the right to good administration enshrined in the Charter. Access to the 
administrative
 file should be provided to the parties 
under investigation when they are notified of preliminary findings and the deadline to submit their written reply
 to the 
preliminary findings should be set
.












(30)


Access to the 
joint case file may be
 provided for 
in the spirit of
 the right to good administration enshrined in the Charter. Access to the 
joint case
 file should be provided to the parties. 
Access of the parties
 to the 
joint case file may be limited at the request of a party to protect their legally recognised rights or the rights of others, or in the public interest
. 
Such limitation must be proportionate in light of the respective recognised rights of others or the public interest pursued.











Amendment 39


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 31








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(31)


When granting access to the 
administrative
 file, supervisory authorities should ensure the protection of business secrets and other confidential information. The category of other confidential information includes information other than business secrets, which may be considered as confidential, insofar as its disclosure would significantly harm a controller, a processor or a natural person. The supervisory authorities should be able to request that parties under investigation that submit or have submitted documents or statements identify confidential information.












(31)


When granting access to the 
joint case
 file, supervisory authorities should ensure the protection of business secrets and other 
legally protected
 confidential information 
and the protection of information in the public interest in accordance with applicable national law
. The category of other confidential information includes information other than business secrets, which may be considered as confidential, insofar as its disclosure would significantly harm a controller, a processor or a natural 
or legal
 person. The supervisory authorities should be able to request that parties under investigation that submit or have submitted documents or statements identify confidential information 
and provide a non-confidential version
.









Amendment 40


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 33








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(33)


When referring a subject-matter to dispute resolution under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the lead supervisory authority should provide the Board with all necessary information to enable it to assess the admissibility of relevant and reasoned objections and to take the decision pursuant to Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Once the Board is in receipt of all the necessary documents 
listed in Article 23, the Chair of
 the Board should register the referral of the subject-matter in 
the sense of
 Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(33)


When referring a subject-matter to dispute resolution under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the lead supervisory authority should provide the Board with all necessary information to enable it to assess the admissibility of relevant and reasoned objections and to take the decision pursuant to Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Once the Board is in receipt of all the necessary documents the Board should register the referral of the subject-matter in 
accordance with
 Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.









Amendment 41


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 34








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(34)


The binding decision of the Board under Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should concern exclusively matters which led to the triggering of the dispute resolution and be drafted in 
a way which allows
 the lead supervisory authority to adopt its final decision on the basis of the decision of the Board 
while maintaining its discretion
.












(34)


The binding decision of the Board under Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should concern exclusively matters which led to the triggering of the dispute resolution and be drafted in 
clear and precise language, allowing
 the lead supervisory authority to adopt its final decision on the basis of the decision of the Board.









Amendment 42


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 36








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(36)


In order to streamline the procedure for the adoption of urgent opinions and urgent binding decisions of the Board under Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is necessary to specify procedural rules regarding the timing of the request for an urgent opinion or urgent binding decision, the documents to be submitted to the Board and on which the Board should base its decision, to whom the opinion or decision of the Board should be addressed, and the consequences of the opinion or decision of the Board.












(36)


In order to streamline the procedure for the adoption of urgent opinions and urgent binding decisions of the Board under Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is necessary to specify procedural rules regarding the timing of the request for an urgent opinion or urgent binding decision, the documents to be submitted to the Board and on which the Board should base its decision, to whom the opinion or decision of the Board should be addressed, and the consequences of the opinion or decision of the Board. 
Provisional measures pursuant to Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should include all possible measures within the powers of supervisory authorities, pursuant to Article 58 of that Regulation.











Amendment 43


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 36 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(36a)






The Board should be able to request any further information from supervisory authorities necessary for it to take a binding decision.











Amendment 44


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 36 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(36b)






The complainant should have a right to a judicial remedy in the event that a supervisory authority does not use its powers or does not otherwise take necessary action required by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In addition, the parties should have a right to take action against the lead supervisory authority in case of inaction or overly long procedures. To ensure that there is no enforcement gap, the parties to the case and organisations under Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be empowered to seek a judicial remedy in the public interest if a supervisory authority does not comply with a decision of the Board and if they consider that the rights of a data subject under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 have been infringed as a result of the processing.











Amendment 45


Proposal for a regulation


Recital 38








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(38)


The European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Data Protection Board were consulted in accordance with Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered a joint opinion on 
[ ]
,












(38)


The European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Data Protection Board were consulted in accordance with Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered a joint opinion on 
19 September 2023
,









Amendment 46


Proposal for a regulation


Section 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Section 1a






 




Subject matter, scope, and definitions







Amendment 47


Proposal for a regulation


Article 1 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Article 1


Article 1




Subject matter


Subject matter 
and scope







Amendment 48


Proposal for a regulation


Article 1 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





This Regulation lays down procedural rules for the handling of complaints and the conduct of investigations in complaint-based and ex officio cases by supervisory authorities in the 
cross-border enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
.


This Regulation lays down procedural rules for the handling of complaints and the conduct of investigations in complaint-based and ex officio cases by supervisory authorities 
whenever supervisory authorities of more than one Member State are involved
 in the 
case, as well as procedural rules on related judicial remedies
.





Amendment 49


Proposal for a regulation


Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 26b of this Regulation also applies to cases before a supervisory authority of a single Member State, pursuant to Article 56(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.







Amendment 50


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(1)


‘
parties
 under investigation’ means the controller(s) and/or processor(s) investigated for alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 
related to cross-border processing
;












(1)


‘
party
 under investigation’ means the controller(s) and/or processor(s) 
complained about, or
 investigated for alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
, as well as their representative(s)
;









Amendment 51


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1a)






‘complainant’ means the data subject or non-for-profit body, organisation or association that has lodged a complaint under Article 77 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and is therefore considered as a party to the proceedings;











Amendment 52


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1b)






‘party’ means the party or parties under investigation, the complainant(s) and any third party involved in the proceedings as defined under national law;











Amendment 53


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1c)






‘national procedural law’ means laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member State that regulate the procedure before a supervisory authority;











Amendment 54


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 d (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1d)






‘complaints procedure’ means a procedure determining the outcome of a complaint under Article 77 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;











Amendment 55


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 e (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1e)






‘ex officio procedure’ means an investigation into the activities of a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body initiated on a supervisory authority’s initiative under Article 57(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;











Amendment 56


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 f (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1f)






‘joint case file’ means a dedicated electronic file for any case falling under the scope of this Regulation, that is managed by the lead supervisory authority and in which all relevant information, in particular documents, submissions, memos and other information regarding a case, are stored and made remotely accessible to supervisory authorities concerned and parties to the case;











Amendment 57


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 1 g (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(1g)






‘complaint-receiving authority’ means the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged as referred to in Article 4(22), point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;











Amendment 58


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(2)


‘summary of key issues’ means the summary to be provided by the lead supervisory authority to supervisory authorities concerned identifying the main relevant 
facts
 and the lead supervisory authority’s views on the case;












(2)


‘summary of key issues’ means the summary to be provided by the lead supervisory authority to supervisory authorities concerned
,
 identifying the main relevant 
factual and legal issues within the preliminary scope of the investigation
 and the lead supervisory authority’s 
factual and legal
 views on the case;









Amendment 59


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(3)


‘preliminary findings’ means the document provided by the lead supervisory authority to the parties 
under investigation
 setting out the allegations, the relevant facts, supporting evidence, legal analysis, and, where applicable, proposed corrective measures;












(3)


‘preliminary findings’ means the document provided by the lead supervisory authority to the parties setting out the allegations, the relevant facts, supporting evidence, legal analysis, and, where applicable, proposed corrective measures;









Amendment 60


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 4 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(4a)






‘confidential version of a document’ means a document containing confidential or sensitive information which may be subject to legal privilege under the applicable Union or national law and data protection rules;











Amendment 61


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 4 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(4b)






‘non-confidential version of a document’ means a version of a document from which confidential or sensitive information has been redacted and which can be provided to the complainant without breaching Union or national law or data protection rules.











Amendment 62


Proposal for a regulation


Section 1 b (new) – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Section 1b






 




Procedural rules







Amendment 63


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 2a






 




Applicable Procedural Law






 





1.
   
In addition to this Regulation, and provided that it is not in conflict with this Regulation, the procedural law applicable before a supervisory authority shall govern all direct interactions between that supervisory authority and the parties before it. This Regulation shall not preclude Member States from specifying procedural matters not regulated by this Regulation or Regulation (EU) 2016/679.







 





2.
   
This Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 govern the interaction between supervisory authorities of different Member States that falls within the scope of this Regulation.







 





3.
   
A complainant shall have the right to communicate exclusively with the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged pursuant to Article 77 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.








Amendment 64


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 2b






 




Common procedural standards






 





1.
   
Without prejudice to additional rights under national procedural law, each party shall have at least the following rights:







 










(a)






to have their case handled impartially and fairly, and to be treated equally, even if they are before different supervisory authorities in different jurisdictions (‘fair procedure’);










 










(b)






to be heard before any measure is taken that would adversely affect them, including before the decision to uphold, or to fully or partially reject a complaint is adopted (‘right to be heard’);










 










(c)






to have access to the joint case file, except to any internal deliberations of the supervisory authority or deliberations between those authorities (‘procedural transparency’).










 





2.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall inform and hear the parties at appropriate stages of the procedure, in order to allow them to effectively express their views on all factual findings and legal conclusions made by the lead supervisory authority.







 





3.
   
The joint case file shall include all evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory, including documents and other evidence provided by the parties under investigation.







 





4.
   
On the request of a party to protect their legally recognised rights or to protect the rights of others, or when it is in the public interest or in order to protect operational security and cybersecurity a supervisory authority may limit the rights referred to in paragraph 1, point (c). Any such limitation shall be carried out in accordance with the national procedural law applicable under Article 2a(1) to any direct interaction between a supervisory authority and the party receiving limited information, and must be proportionate in light of the respective recognised rights of others or the public interest pursued. The party claiming confidentiality shall provide a confidential version of any information, as well as a suggested non-confidential version.







 





5.
   
The non-confidential version of documents that were provided by a party shall be determined by the supervisory authority making a determination pursuant to first sentence of paragraph 4, applying only strictly proportionate measures, such as redacting specific parts of documents.







 





6.
   
Supervisory authorities concerned shall always have access to the confidential version of all documents, and may object to redactions that they consider not strictly proportionate. Supervisory authorities pursuant to first sentence of paragraph 4 shall immediately inform the parties about the fact that information is withheld. The lead supervisory authority shall keep records of each access to the joint case file.







 





7.
   
In the interest of efficiency of procedures, supervisory authorities shall limit the length of submissions by the parties to not more than 50 pages. Those authorities shall set reasonable and appropriate time limits not shorter than three weeks and not longer than six weeks, unless exceptional circumstances require a reasonable extension. The supervisory authorities shall not be obliged to take into account written views received after the expiry of that time-limit.







 





8.
   
The lead supervisory authority may join and separate cases in accordance with national procedural law, insofar as this does not undermine the rights of the parties.








Amendment 65


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 2c






 




Cooperation between supervisory authorities






 





1.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall structure, coordinate and manage the case in an efficient and expedient way, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, this Regulation and any applicable national procedural law.







 





2.
   
Any supervisory authority may declare that it is concerned, setting out the reasons why it meets the definition of a supervisory authority concerned under Article 4(22) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The lead supervisory authority shall maintain a list of supervisory authorities concerned for each case in the joint case file.







 




Where the lead supervisory authority considers that a supervisory authority which has made a declaration that it is concerned according to this paragraph does not meet the definition of a supervisory authority concerned, it shall inform that authority of its assessment. The supervisory authority which declared that it is concerned shall within one week of receiving that assessment either withdraw its declaration, or produce a reasoned opinion setting out the reasons why it considers the assessment of the lead supervisory authority to be incorrect. Where the diverging assessments of the lead supervisory authority and the supervisory authority which declared to be concerned cannot be resolved in a different manner, the lead supervisory authority shall request a determination of the Board under Article 26a.






 





3.
   
Any supervisory authority concerned which receives relevant information for a case shall provide it to the lead supervisory authority without delay, but no later than one week from the day that it received such information.







 





4.
   
Where diverging views cannot be overcome or in the case of inactivity of another supervisory authority, supervisory authorities shall use the powers intended for resolution of such situations under this Regulation and under Chapter VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.







 





5.
   
All written documents by the supervisory authorities shall be provided by electronic means and in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.








Amendment 66


Proposal for a regulation


Article 2 d (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 2d






 




Use of Languages and Translations






 





1.
   
The Board shall determine one language that shall be accepted by all supervisory authorities during the cooperation between authorities (‘cooperation language’).







 





2.
   
When a supervisory authority shares relevant information with another supervisory authority, it shall provide a translation into the cooperation language or any other language the receiving supervisory authority accepts.







 





3.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall provide submissions into the joint case file in the original language, and shall provide translations into the cooperation language.







 





4.
   
In any direct interaction with the parties, supervisory authorities shall provide parties with information in the original language and, if necessary, either a translation into the language of the national procedural law, or into any other language the party understands or uses in its routine external communication.







 





5.
   
A supervisory authority may provide automated translations, if it finds that the automated translation is not substantially different from the original.







 





6.
   
When a judicial remedy is filed against a supervisory authority, the supervisory authority shall provide the joint case file and any other relevant information in a language accepted by the judiciary of the Member State.








Amendment 67


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   A complaint 
on the basis of
 Regulation 
(EU) 2016/679 that relates to cross-border processing
 shall provide the information required in the 
Form
, as set out in the Annex. No additional information shall be required in order for the complaint to be admissible.




1.   A complaint 
subject to this
 Regulation shall provide the information required in the 
template
, as set out in the Annex.





 


No additional information shall be required in order for the complaint to be admissible. 
The information can be provided by any means the authority accepts, including by not using the template.







Amendment 68


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1a.
   
The complainant shall not be required to contact the party under investigation before submitting a complaint. Where the complainant was in contact with the party under investigation before submitting the complaint relating to the same matter, he or she shall submit the communication related to that contact pursuant to the Annex.








Amendment 69


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 1 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1b.
   
The supervisory authority with which a complaint has been lodged shall, within two weeks, acknowledge receipt and admissibility of the complaint, or, where a complaint does not meet the requirements pursuant to paragraph 1, declare the complaint inadmissible and inform the complainant about the missing information.








Amendment 70


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1c.
   
The supervisory authority shall attribute a case number to the complaint and communicate this information to the complainant. This shall be without prejudice to the assessment of admissibility of the complaint pursuant to paragraph 2(c), point (i).








Amendment 71


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






2.   The supervisory authority with which the complaint 
was
 lodged shall 
establish whether
 the complaint 
relates to cross-border processing.






2.   The supervisory authority with which the complaint 
has been
 lodged shall
, within three weeks after acknowledging the admissibility of
 the complaint 
pursuant to paragraph 1b:








Amendment 72


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(a)






establish, by way of a preliminary conclusion, whether the complaint relates to cross-border processing of personal data of the complainant, considering at least the following:










 










(i)






relevant controller or processor for the processing in question;










 










(ii)






number of establishments of the controller or processor in the EU;










 










(iii)






place of the main establishment;










 










(iv)






activities of establishments in more than one Member State;










 










(v)






substantial effect or likely substantial effect on data subjects in more than one Member State.











Amendment 73


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(b)






establish which supervisory authority is the assumed lead supervisory authority under Article 56(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and whether the case is local in nature pursuant to Article 56(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679,











Amendment 74


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(c)






take one of the following actions:










 










(i)






transmit the complaint to the assumed lead supervisory authority under Article 56(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and inform the complainant thereof. The assessment of the admissibility of the complaint by the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall be binding on the lead supervisory authority; or










 










(ii)






handle the complaint under Article 56(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.











Amendment 75


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





2a.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall immediately provide the complaint to the party under investigation and request a reply without undue delay, but no later than three weeks from the day the party under investigation was informed by the lead supervisory authority. In complex cases, and where requested and duly justified by the party under investigation, the time for replying can be extended by the lead supervisory authority by another three weeks.








Amendment 76


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





2b.
   
The parties or the assumed lead supervisory authority shall raise any objection in relation to the competence of the assumed lead supervisory authority or to the handling of a complaint under Article 56(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 within three weeks from being informed about the action taken pursuant to Article 3(2), point (c).








Amendment 77


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 2 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





2c.
   
Where an objection under paragraph 2b was raised, the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged may withdraw the transmission of the complaint and either assume its own competence under Article 55 or 56 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or transfer it to an assumed lead supervisory authority within two weeks. If none of these actions were taken, or where differing assessments of the supervisory authorities involved cannot be resolved otherwise, the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall request a determination by the Board under Article 26a. It shall provide the Board with a description of relevant processing activities, of the company's organisation and a description of where decisions are taken.








Amendment 78


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








3.
   
The supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall determine the completeness of the information required by the Form within one month.







deleted







Amendment 79


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 4








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








4.
   
Upon assessment of the completeness of the information required by the Form, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall transmit the complaint to the lead supervisory authority.







deleted







Amendment 80


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 5








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








5.
   
Where the complainant claims confidentiality when submitting a complaint, the complainant shall also submit a non-confidential version of the complaint.







deleted







Amendment 81


Proposal for a regulation


Article 3 – paragraph 6








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








6.
   
The supervisory authority with which a complaint was lodged shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint within one week. This acknowledgement shall be without prejudice to the assessment of admissibility of the complaint pursuant to paragraph 3.







deleted







Amendment 82


Proposal for a regulation


Chapter II – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











II




Submission and handling of
 complaints












II


Complaints 
and ex officio procedures











(Heading ‘Chapter II’ is placed after article 3 and its title is changed)


Amendment 83


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Investigation
 of complaints




Handling
 of complaints





Amendment 84


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





While assessing the extent appropriate to which a complaint should be investigated in each case the supervisory authority shall 
take into account all relevant circumstances, including all of
 the following:




1.   While assessing the extent appropriate to which a complaint should be investigated in each case the 
lead
 supervisory authority shall 
endeavour to ensure
 the following:






Amendment 85


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


the 
expediency of delivering
 an effective and timely remedy to the complainant;












(a)


the 
delivery of
 an effective and timely remedy to the complainant;









Amendment 86


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


the 
gravity of the alleged infringement
;












(b)


the 
investigation of relevant factual and legal elements required to jointly decide on the complaint and issue a decision under Article 60(7), (8) and (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
;









Amendment 87


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(c)


the systemic or repetitive 
nature of the alleged infringement
.












(c)


the 
investigation of any other elements necessary for the efficient enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, including the ex officio exercise of powers pursuant to Article 58(2), Article 83 or Article 84 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, especially in the case of
 systemic
, grave
 or repetitive 
infringements
.









Amendment 88


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1a.
   
The handling of a complaint shall always lead to a legally binding decision that is subject to an effective legal remedy under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.








Amendment 89


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1b.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall deliver a draft decision pursuant to Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 without delay, and no later than nine months from the receipt of the complaint.







 




This deadline may exceptionally be extended by:






 










(a)






eight weeks when comments under Article 9(3) are submitted with regard to a summary of key issues or an updated summary of key issues;










 










(b)






eight weeks where the lead supervisory authority intends to issue fines or other penalties;










 










(c)






the period of time between a reference under Article 26a(1) or (2) and the decision by the Board;










 










(d)






the period of any prolongation permitted by the Board under Article 26a(3).










 




Each extension under points (a) to (d) may only be done once.







Amendment 90


Proposal for a regulation


Article 4 – paragraph 1 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1c.
   
Paragraph 1b shall not apply once a case is submitted to the consistency mechanism in accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.








Amendment 91


Proposal for a regulation


Article 5 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





A complaint may be resolved by amicable settlement between the complainant and the 
parties
 under investigation
. Where the
 supervisory authority 
considers that an amicable settlement to the complaint has been found, it shall communicate the proposed settlement to the complainant
. 
If the complainant does not object to the amicable settlement proposed by the supervisory authority within one month, the complaint shall be deemed withdrawn.







1.
   A complaint may be resolved by amicable settlement between the complainant and the 
party
 under investigation 
at any stage of the proceedings. The complaint-receiving or the lead
 supervisory authority 
may encourage and facilitate that voluntary process
.






Amendment 92


Proposal for a regulation


Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1a.
   
An amicable settlement between the complainant and the party under investigation shall be considered to be found where there is explicit agreement. Where an amicable settlement to the complaint has been found, the parties shall within one month communicate the settlement to the lead supervisory authority and the supervisory authority where the complaint has been lodged.








Amendment 93


Proposal for a regulation


Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1b.
   
Within one month after the communication of the amicable settlement under paragraph 1a, a draft decision pursuant to Article 56(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall be submitted, indicating:







 










(a)






whether the conditions of an amicable settlement under paragraph 1a are fulfilled, and










 










(b)






whether to open an ex officio investigation under paragraph 1d.











Amendment 94


Proposal for a regulation


Article 5 – paragraph 1 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1c.
   
Where, within one month, none of the other supervisory authorities concerned have objected to the draft decision under paragraph 1b or the Board confirms the amicable settlement in the procedure under Article 65(1), point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the complaint shall be deemed withdrawn and the settlement shall become valid.








Amendment 95


Proposal for a regulation


Article 5 – paragraph 1 d (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1d.
   
An amicable settlement does not prevent the lead supervisory authority from conducting an ex officio investigation in the same matter. It may open an ex officio investigation instead, in particular where:







 










(a)






the party under investigation is a repeat offender;










 










(b)






the party under investigation has been the subject of a large number of other amicable settlements;










 










(c)






the broad subject matter of the complaint concerns a large number of data subjects other than the complainant, is of long duration, or is of serious nature; or










 










(d)






the exercise of powers is otherwise required to ensure effective, proportionate and dissuasive enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.











Amendment 96


Proposal for a regulation


Article 5 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 5a






 




Request for an ex officio procedure






 





1.
   
Where it considers that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may be violated and data subjects in the territory of its Member State are affected, any supervisory authority concerned may request an ex officio procedure by submitting a written request for a discretionary action pursuant to paragraph 2 to the lead supervisory authority. Such a request shall contain at least:







 










(a)






a declaration to be a supervisory authority concerned, and










 










(b)






a summary of key issues pursuant to Article 9.










 





2.
   
Within three weeks, the assumed lead supervisory authority shall:







 










(a)






inform the supervisory authority concerned that it has opened an ex officio procedure;










 










(b)






inform the supervisory authority concerned that Article 56(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 applies to the case and that in accordance with Article 56(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the lead supervisory authority does not intend to handle the case itself; or










 










(c)






reject the request, if it takes the view that it is not the lead supervisory authority or there is no prima facie violation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.










 




In the case referred to in point (a) of this paragraph, the supervisory authority concerned may submit to the lead supervisory authority a draft decision pursuant to Article 56(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.






 




In the cases referred to in point (b) and (c) of this paragraph, the supervisory authority concerned may resubmit an amended request for an ex officio procedure, or request a determination on the opening of the procedure by the Board in accordance with Article 26a(1).






 





3.
   
Where the lead supervisory authority opens an ex officio procedure, it shall deliver a draft decision pursuant to Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 without delay, but no later than nine months from the receipt of the request pursuant to paragraph 1. This deadline may exceptionally be extended by:







 










(a)






eight weeks when comments under Article 9(3) are submitted against a summary of key issues or an updated summary of key issues;










 










(b)






eight weeks where the lead supervisory authority intends to issue fines or other penalties;










 










(c)






the period of time between a reference under Article 26a and the decision by the Board;










 










(d)






the period of any prolongation permitted by the Board under Article 26a(3).











Amendment 97


Proposal for a regulation


Article 6








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 6






deleted








Translations




 







1.
   
The supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall be responsible for:





 












(a)






translation of complaints and the views of complainants into the language used by the lead supervisory authority for the purposes of the investigation;








 












(b)






translation of documents provided by the lead supervisory authority into the language used for communication with the complainant, where it is necessary to provide such documents to the complainant pursuant to this Regulation or Regulation (EU) 2016/679.








 







2.
   
In its rules of procedure, the Board shall determine the procedure for the translation of comments or relevant and reasoned objections expressed by supervisory authorities concerned in a language other than the language used by the lead supervisory authority for the purposes of the investigation.





 





Amendment 98


Proposal for a regulation


Chapter III – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Cooperation under Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679


Cooperation under Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 
and with other relevant authorities







Amendment 99


Proposal for a regulation


Article 7 – paragraph 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







The provisions in this section concern the relations between supervisory authorities and are not intended to confer rights on individuals or the parties under investigation.






deleted







Amendment 100


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   The lead supervisory authority shall 
regularly update the other supervisory authorities concerned about the investigation and
 provide the other supervisory authorities concerned
, at the earliest convenience,
 with all relevant information 
once available
.




1.   The lead supervisory authority shall provide the other supervisory authorities concerned with 
instant, unrestricted and continuous remote access to the full joint case file, and shall include in the joint case file
 all relevant information
, in particular documents, submissions, memos and other information related to the case within one week from producing or receiving them
.






Amendment 101


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






2.   Relevant information within the meaning of Article 60(1) and (3) of Regulation 
(EU) 2016/679
 shall 
include
, where applicable:




2.   
The lead supervisory authority shall actively provide and notify the other supervisory authorities concerned and, where necessary for dispute resolution under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the Board, with
 relevant information within the meaning of Article 60(1) and (3) of 
that
 Regulation
, within one week from producing or receiving it. This information
 shall 
cover information on major steps in the procedure
, 
including
 where applicable:






Amendment 102


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


information on the opening of an investigation 
of an alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
;












(a)


information on the opening of an 
ex officio
 investigation 
or of a complaints procedure
;









Amendment 103


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(e)


summary of key issues in an investigation in accordance with Article 9;












(e)




the issuing or updating of the
 summary of key issues in an investigation in accordance with Article 9;









Amendment 104


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ea)






any comments to a summary of key issues in accordance with Article 9(3);











Amendment 105


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point f








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(f)


information concerning steps aiming to establish an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 prior to the preparation of preliminary findings;












(f)


information concerning steps aiming to establish an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 prior to the preparation of preliminary findings 
and prior to the preparation of the draft decision
;









Amendment 106


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point i








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(i)


the views of the complainant on the preliminary findings;












(i)


the views of the complainant on the 
non-confidential version of the
 preliminary findings 
and, if applicable, other aspects of the investigation on which formal written submissions have been made by the complainant
;









Amendment 107


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point k a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ka)






any draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or revised draft decision in accordance with Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;











Amendment 108


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point k b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(kb)






any relevant and reasoned objections in accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;











Amendment 109


Proposal for a regulation


Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point k c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(kc)






any judicial remedy brought during a procedure under Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or against a decision under Article 60(7) to (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.











Amendment 110


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   
Once
 the lead supervisory authority 
has formed a preliminary view on the main issues in an investigation, it
 shall draft a summary of key issues for the purpose of cooperation under Article 60(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.




1.   
Within four weeks after having received a complaint, or a request to open an ex officio procedure,
 the lead supervisory authority shall draft a summary of key issues 
that presumably need to be determined in order to decide the case,
 for the purpose of cooperation under Article 60(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
, and provide this summary to the supervisory authorities concerned
. 
The summary shall be drafted in an impartial way, taking into account any diverging facts and arguments. When transferring a case to the lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 3(2), point (c), point (i), the concerned supervisory authority may provide a draft of a summary of key issues, which is not binding on the lead supervisory authority.








Amendment 111


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


the 
main
 relevant facts;












(a)


the relevant facts;









Amendment 112


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


a preliminary identification of the scope of the investigation, in particular the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 concerned by the alleged infringement 
which will be investigated
;












(b)


a preliminary identification of the scope of the investigation, in particular the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 concerned by the alleged infringement
, and, where applicable, an indication of whether they appear to have been infringed
;









Amendment 113


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(c)




identification of complex legal and technological assessments which are relevant for
 preliminary 
orientation of their
 assessment;












(c)


preliminary 
factual or legal
 assessments
, dealing with all relevant views as expressed by parties when the summary is drafted, and including relevant European case law, as well as guidelines, recommendations and best practices issued by the Board
;









Amendment 114


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





2a.
   
The summary of key issues shall be updated by the lead supervisory authority without undue delay to reflect any factual or legal changes that emerge during the course of the procedure.








Amendment 115


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






3.   The supervisory authorities concerned may provide comments on the summary of key issues. Such comments must be provided within four weeks of receipt of the summary of key issues.




3.   The supervisory authorities concerned may provide 
factual or legal
 comments on the summary of key issues. Such comments must be provided within four weeks of receipt of the summary of key issues 
or any update of it, in accordance with Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
.






Amendment 116


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 4








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








4.
   
Comments provided pursuant to paragraph 3 shall meet the following requirements:







deleted














(a)






language used is sufficiently clear and contains precise terms to enable the lead supervisory authority, and, as the case may be, supervisory authorities concerned, to prepare their positions;








 












(b)






legal arguments are set out succinctly and grouped by reference to the part of the summary of key issues to which they relate;








 












(c)






the comments of the supervisory authority concerned may be supported by documents, which may supplement the comments on specific points.








 





Amendment 117


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 5








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








5.
   
The Board may specify in its rules of procedure restrictions on the maximum length of comments submitted by supervisory authorities concerned on the summary of key issues.







deleted







Amendment 118


Proposal for a regulation


Article 9 – paragraph 6








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






6.   Cases where none of the supervisory authorities concerned provided comments under paragraph 3 of this Article shall be considered non-contentious cases. In such cases, the 
preliminary findings
 referred to in Article 
14
 shall be 
communicated to the parties under investigation within 9
 months 
of the expiry of the deadline provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article
.




6.   Cases where none of the supervisory authorities concerned provided comments under paragraph 3 of this Article 
which challenge the summary of key issues or raise other important factual or legal questions
 shall be considered non-contentious cases. In such cases, the 
deadline to issue a draft decision
 referred to in Article 
4(1b)
 shall be 
3
 months.






Amendment 119


Proposal for a regulation


Chapter III – Section 2 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Full or partial rejection of complaints






Cooperation with other relevant authorities







(Heading ‘Section II’ is placed after Article 9 and its title is changed)


Amendment 120


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   A supervisory authority concerned shall make a request to the lead supervisory authority under Article 61 
of Regulation (EU) 2016/679,
 Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or both, where, following the comments of supervisory authorities concerned pursuant to Article 9(3), a supervisory authority concerned disagrees with the assessment of the lead supervisory authority on:




1.   A supervisory authority concerned shall make a request to the lead supervisory authority under Article 61 
or
 Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or both, where, following the comments of supervisory authorities concerned pursuant to Article 9(3), a supervisory authority concerned disagrees with the assessment of the lead supervisory authority on:






Amendment 121


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


preliminary 
orientation in relation to complex
 legal assessments identified by the lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 9(2), point (c);












(b)


preliminary 
factual or
 legal assessments identified by the lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 9(2), point (c);









Amendment 122


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(c)






preliminary orientation in relation to complex technological assessments identified by the lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 9(2), point (c).










deleted







Amendment 123


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ca)






preliminary identification of potential corrective measure(s) pursuant to Article 9(2), point (d).











Amendment 124


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






3.   The lead supervisory authority shall engage with the supervisory authorities concerned on the basis of their comments on the summary of key issues, and, where applicable, in response to requests under Article 61 and 62 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in an endeavour to reach a consensus. The consensus shall be used as a basis for the lead supervisory authority to continue the investigation and draft the preliminary findings 
or, where applicable, provide the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged with its reasoning for the purposes of Article 11(2)
.




3.   
In cases not falling under Article 9(6) of this Regulation,
 the lead supervisory authority shall 
investigate facts relevant for diverging views and
 engage
, making its best effort,
 with the supervisory authorities concerned on the basis of their comments on the summary of key issues, and, where applicable, in response to requests under Article 61 and 62 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in an endeavour to reach a consensus. The consensus shall be used as a basis for the lead supervisory authority to continue the investigation and draft the preliminary findings.






Amendment 125


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 4








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






4.   Where, 
in a complaint-based investigation, there is no
 consensus between the lead supervisory authority and one or more concerned supervisory authorities on the 
matter
 referred to in Article 9(2)
, point (b), of this Regulation
, the lead supervisory authority shall request 
an urgent binding decision
 of the Board under Article 
66(3) of
 Regulation 
(EU) 2016/679
. 
In that case, the conditions for requesting an urgent binding decision under Article 66(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall be presumed to be met.






4.   Where 
within four weeks after the expiry of the deadlines for comments
, 
the procedure provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article fails to generate
 consensus between the lead supervisory authority and one or more supervisory authorities concerned on the 
matters
 referred to in Article 9(2), the lead supervisory authority 
or a supervisory authority concerned
 shall request 
a procedural determination
 of the Board under Article 
26a of this
 Regulation.






Amendment 126


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 5 – introductory part








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






5.   When requesting 
an urgent binding decision
 of the Board pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, the 
lead
 supervisory authority shall provide all of the following:




5.   When requesting 
a procedural determination
 of the Board pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, the 
requesting
 supervisory authority shall provide all of the following:






Amendment 127


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


the 
documents
 referred to in Article 9(2), 
points (a) and (b)
;












(a)


the 
relevant information
 referred to in Article 9(2), 
including any updates when they occur
;









Amendment 128


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


the comments of the supervisory 
authority
 concerned that 
disagrees
 with the lead supervisory authority’s preliminary identification of the scope of the investigation.













(b)


the comments of the supervisory 
authorities
 concerned that 
disagree
 with the lead supervisory authority’s preliminary identification of the scope of the investigation 
or the factual or legal assessment of the elements of the summary of key issues referred to in Article 9(2);











Amendment 129


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ba)






access to the joint case file.











Amendment 130


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





5a.
   
The Board may request the supervisory authorities to provide other documents or information, as it deems appropriate in the particular case.








Amendment 131


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 – paragraph 6








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






6.   The Board shall adopt an urgent binding decision on the 
scope of the investigation
 on the basis of 
the comments of the supervisory authorities concerned and the position of the lead supervisory authority on those comments
.




6.   The Board shall adopt an urgent binding decision on the 
summary of key issues or on extending the period referred to in paragraph 4, in accordance with Article 26a,
 on the basis of 
all documents received
.






Amendment 132


Proposal for a regulation


Article 10 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 10a






 




Cooperation with other relevant authorities






 




Supervisory authorities shall strive to communicate non-personal information obtained in the context of the procedures set out in this Regulation to national and Union supervisory authorities competent in data protection and other areas, including competition, financial services, energy, telecommunications, consumer protection, digital services, or artificial intelligence supervisory authorities, where the information is deemed relevant to the tasks and duties of those authorities, in particular for opening administrative procedures and investigations into possible violations of legislation under their competences. Information can be only used for the purposes of which it was gathered. However, that does not preclude the supervisory authority to initiate other proceedings based on that information or to share it with other authorities for that purpose.







Amendment 133


Proposal for a regulation


Article 11








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 11






deleted








Hearing of complainant prior to full or partial rejection of a complaint




 







1.
   
Following the procedure provided for in Article 9 and 10, the lead supervisory authority shall provide the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged with the reasons for its preliminary view that the complaint should be fully or partially rejected.





 







2.
   
The supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall inform the complainant of the reasons for the intended full or partial rejection of the complaint and set a time-limit within which the complainant may make known her or his views in writing. The time-limit shall be no less than three weeks. The supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall inform the complainant of the consequences of the failure to make her or his views known.





 







3.
   
If the complainant fails to make known her or his views within the time-limit set by the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged, the complaint shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.





 







4.
   
The complainant may request access to the non-confidential version of the documents on which the proposed rejection of the complaint is based.





 







5.
   
If the complainant makes known her or his views within the time-limit set by the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged and the views do not lead to a change in the preliminary view that the complaint should be fully or partially rejected, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall prepare the draft decision under Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 which shall be submitted to the other supervisory authorities concerned by the lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.





 





Amendment 134


Proposal for a regulation


Article 12








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 12






deleted








Revised draft decision fully or partially rejecting a complaint




 







1.
   
Where the lead supervisory authority considers that the revised draft decision within the meaning of Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 raises elements on which the complainant should have the opportunity to make her or his views known, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall, prior to the submission of the revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provide the complainant with the possibility to make her or his views known on such new elements.





 







2.
   
The supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall set a time-limit within which the complainant may make known her or his views.





 





Amendment 135


Proposal for a regulation


Article 13








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 13






deleted








Decision fully or partially rejecting a complaint




 






When adopting a decision fully or partially rejecting a complaint in accordance with Article 60(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall inform the complainant of the judicial remedy available to him or her in accordance with Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.




 





Amendment 136


Proposal for a regulation


Chapter III – Section 3 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Decisions addressed to 
controllers and processors




Decisions addressed to 
parties under investigation







Amendment 137


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Preliminary findings and 
reply




Preliminary findings and 
the right to be heard







Amendment 138


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   When the lead supervisory authority intends to submit a draft decision within the meaning of Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the other supervisory authorities concerned finding an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it shall draft preliminary findings.




1.   
Following the consultations and procedures under Articles 9 and 10 of this Regulation,
 when the lead supervisory authority intends to submit a draft decision Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the other supervisory authorities concerned finding an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it shall draft preliminary findings.






Amendment 139


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





The preliminary findings shall present allegations raised in an exhaustive and sufficiently clear way to enable the parties under investigation to take cognisance of the conduct investigated by the lead supervisory authority. In particular, they 
must
 set out clearly all the facts and the entire legal assessment raised against the parties under investigation, so that they can express their views on the facts and the legal conclusions the lead supervisory authority intends to draw in the draft decision within the meaning of Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and list all the evidence it relies upon.


The preliminary findings shall present allegations raised in an exhaustive and sufficiently clear way to enable the parties under investigation to take cognisance of the conduct investigated by the lead supervisory authority. In particular, they 
shall
 set out clearly all the facts
, including listing all the evidence relied upon,
 and the entire legal assessment raised against the parties under investigation, so that they 
are heard and
 can express their views on the facts and the legal conclusions the lead supervisory authority intends to draw in the draft decision within the meaning of Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and list all the evidence it relies upon.





Amendment 140


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





The preliminary findings shall indicate corrective measures the lead supervisory authority 
intends to use
.


The preliminary findings shall indicate 
the
 corrective measures 
that are considered by
 the lead supervisory authority.





Amendment 141


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Where the lead supervisory authority 
intends to impose
 a fine, it shall list in the preliminary findings the relevant elements on which it 
relies
 while calculating the fine. In particular, the lead supervisory authority shall list the essential facts and matters of law which may result in the imposition of the fine and the elements listed in Article 83(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, including any aggravating or mitigating factors it will take into account.


Where the lead supervisory authority 
considers imposing
 a fine, it shall list in the preliminary findings the relevant elements on which it 
intends to rely in deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and
 while calculating the fine. In particular, the lead supervisory authority shall list the essential facts and matters of law which may result in the imposition of the fine and the elements listed in Article 83(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, including any aggravating or mitigating factors it will take into account.





Amendment 142


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






3.   The lead supervisory authority shall notify preliminary findings to each of the parties under investigation.




3.   The lead supervisory authority shall notify preliminary findings to each of the parties under investigation 
that may be subject to the exercise of a corrective power, as well as to the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged and the supervisory authorities concerned
. 
The supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall notify preliminary findings to the complainant.








Amendment 143


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 4








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








4.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall, when notifying the preliminary findings to the parties under investigation, set a time-limit within which these parties may provide their views in writing. The lead supervisory authority shall not be obliged to take into account written views received after the expiry of that time-limit.







deleted







Amendment 144


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 5








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment








5.
   
When notifying the preliminary findings to the parties under investigation, the lead supervisory authority shall provide those parties with access to the administrative file in accordance with Article 20.







deleted







Amendment 145


Proposal for a regulation


Article 14 – paragraph 6








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






6.   The parties under investigation may, in their written reply to preliminary findings, set out all facts and legal arguments known to them which are relevant to their defence against the allegations of the lead supervisory authority. They shall attach any relevant documents as proof of the facts set out. The lead supervisory authority shall, in its draft decision, deal only with allegations, including the facts and the legal assessment based on those facts, in respect of which the parties 
under investigation
 have been given the opportunity to comment.




6.   The parties under investigation may, in their written reply to preliminary findings, set out all facts and legal arguments known to them which are relevant to their defence against the allegations of the lead supervisory authority. They shall attach any relevant documents as of the facts set out. The lead supervisory authority shall, in its draft decision, deal only with allegations, including the facts and the legal assessment based on those facts, in respect of which the parties have been given the opportunity to comment.






Amendment 146


Proposal for a regulation


Article 15








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 15






deleted








Transmission of preliminary findings to complainants




 







1.
   
Where the lead supervisory authority issues preliminary findings relating to a matter in respect of which it has received a complaint, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall provide the complainant with a non-confidential version of the preliminary findings and set a time-limit within which the complainant may make known its views in writing.





 







2.
   
Paragraph 1 shall apply also when a supervisory authority, where appropriate, treats several complaints jointly, splits the complaints in several parts or in any other way exercises its discretion concerning the scope of the investigation as set out in preliminary findings.





 







3.
   
Where the lead supervisory authority considers that it is necessary for the complainant to be provided with documents included in the administrative file in order for the complainant to effectively make known her or his views on the preliminary findings, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged shall provide the complainant with the non-confidential version of such documents when providing the preliminary findings pursuant to paragraph 1.





 







4.
   
The complainant shall be provided with the non-confidential version of the preliminary findings only for the purpose of the concrete investigation in which the preliminary findings were issued.





 







5.
   
Before receiving the non-confidential version of preliminary findings and any documents provided pursuant to paragraph 3, the complainant shall send to the lead supervisory authority a confidentiality declaration, where the complainant commits himself or herself not to disclose any information or assessment made in the non-confidential version of preliminary findings or to use those findings for purposes other than the concrete investigation in which those findings were issued.





 





Amendment 147


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Adoption of final decision




Submission of draft decisions, revised draft decisions and
 adoption of final decision





Amendment 148


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





After submitting the draft decision to supervisory authorities concerned pursuant to Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and where none of the supervisory authorities concerned has objected to the draft decision within the periods referred to in Article 60(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the lead supervisory authority shall adopt and notify its decision under Article 60(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the main establishment or single establishment of the controller or processor, as the case may be, and inform the supervisory authorities concerned and the Board of the decision in question, including a summary of the relevant facts and grounds.


After submitting the draft decision to supervisory authorities concerned pursuant to Article 60(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and where none of the supervisory authorities concerned has objected to the draft decision within the periods referred to in Article 60(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the lead supervisory authority shall
, within four weeks from the end of the periods referred to in Article 60(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679,
 adopt and notify its decision under Article 60(7) 
and Article 60(9)
 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the main establishment or single establishment of the controller or processor, as the case may be, and inform the supervisory authorities concerned and the Board of the decision in question, including a summary of the relevant facts and grounds.





Amendment 149


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1a.
   
Where a supervisory authority concerned has objected to the draft decision within the period referred to in Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and the lead supervisory authority intends to follow that objection, the lead supervisory authority shall, within four weeks, submit a revised draft decision pursuant to Article 60(5) of that Regulation.








Amendment 150


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1b.
   
Where a supervisory authority concerned has objected to the draft decision within the period referred to in Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and the lead supervisory authority does not follow the relevant and reasoned objection or is of the opinion that the objection is not relevant or reasoned, the lead supervisory authority shall, within four weeks, submit the matter to the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 63, in accordance with Article 60(4) of that Regulation.








Amendment 151


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1c.
   
Without prejudice to additional requirements under national law, any draft decision or final decision under Article 60(3), (5) or (7) to (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall be issued in writing, using a short, concise, transparent, intelligible form and clear and plain language. It shall be drafted in an impartial way, taking into account any diverging evidence and views of the parties, and shall at least contain the following elements:







 










(a)






the name of the supervisory authority which issued the decision;










 










(b)






the date of issuing the decision;










 










(c)






an impartial summary of the relevant facts of the case and their source;










 










(d)






the legal grounds for the decision;










 










(e)






the exercised corrective powers, penalties or other measures; and










 










(f)






information on the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and any applicable national procedural law.











Amendment 152


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 d (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1d.
   
In the event where the legally binding decision is to be issued by the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged in accordance with Article 60(8) or (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the lead supervisory authority shall ensure that the decision contains all elements necessary under the applicable national procedural law of the supervisory authority concerned. The supervisory authority concerned with which the complaint has been lodged shall assist the lead supervisory authority in drafting the decision in such a manner.








Amendment 153


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 e (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1e.
   
Any draft decision or final decision shall only rely on factual findings made on the basis of documents or other evidence, on which the parties under investigation had the opportunity to make their views known.








Amendment 154


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 f (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










1f.






The information provided to the parties under Article 60(7) to (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall include a copy of the legally binding decision, and information about a judicial remedy available in accordance with Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.











Amendment 155


Proposal for a regulation


Article 16 – paragraph 1 g (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










1g.






Supervisory authorities shall publish all legally binding decisions they issue without undue delay, but no later than three months after adoption, unless the new decisions do not materially depart from previously published decisions. In accordance with applicable national law, supervisory authorities may redact party names, any other information that may allow the identification of parties, and other information that is protected under applicable law.











Amendment 156


Proposal for a regulation


Article 17








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 17






deleted








Right to be heard in relation to revised draft decision




 







1.
   
Where the lead supervisory authority considers that the revised draft decision within the meaning of Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 raises elements on which the parties under investigation should have the opportunity to make their views known, the lead supervisory authority shall, prior to the submission of the revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provide the parties under investigation with the possibility to make their views known on such new elements.





 







2.
   
The lead supervisory authority shall set a time-limit within which the parties under investigation may make known their views.





 





Amendment 157


Proposal for a regulation


Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


be based 
exclusively
 on factual elements included in the draft decision
; and














(a)


be based on factual elements included in the draft decision
, or on the evidence the joint case file or on any additional evidence submitted together with the relevant and reasoned objection;











Amendment 158


Proposal for a regulation


Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


not change the scope of the 
allegations by raising points amounting to identification of additional allegations of infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or changing the intrinsic nature
 of the 
allegations raised.














(b)


not change the scope of the 
case as defined in the latest version
 of the 
summary of key issues; and











Amendment 159


Proposal for a regulation


Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ba)






clearly identify the elements of the draft decision that should be changed, including, when possible, the precise wording of the proposed change or a sufficiently precise description of the proposed change to the draft decision.











Amendment 160


Proposal for a regulation


Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(a)






the length of each relevant and reasoned objection and the position of the lead supervisory authority on any such objection shall not exceed three pages and shall not include annexes. In cases involving particularly complex legal issues, the maximum length may be increased to six pages, except if specific circumstances justifying a longer length are accepted by the Board;










deleted







Amendment 161


Proposal for a regulation


Chapter IV








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







[...]






deleted







Amendment 162


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Referral to dispute resolution under Article 
65
 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679


Referral to dispute resolution under Article 
65(1), point (a)
 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679





Amendment 163


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   If the lead supervisory authority does not follow the relevant and reasoned objections or is of the opinion that the objections are not relevant or reasoned, it shall submit the subject-matter to the dispute resolution mechanism set out in Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.




1.   If the lead supervisory authority does not follow the relevant and reasoned objections or is of the opinion that the objections are not relevant or reasoned, it shall submit the subject-matter to the dispute resolution mechanism set out in Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
, within four weeks from the receipt of all relevant and reasoned objections or from the lapse of the deadline pursuant to Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
. 
Relevant and reasoned objections that have been received after the deadline shall not be taken into consideration.








Amendment 164


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – introductory part








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






2.   When referring the subject-matter to dispute resolution, the lead supervisory authority shall provide the Board with all of the following 
documents
:




2.   When referring the subject-matter to dispute resolution, the lead supervisory authority shall provide the Board with all of the following:






Amendment 165


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(aa)






the summary of key issues;











Amendment 166


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


a summary of the relevant facts;












(b)


a summary of the relevant facts
, including the description of processing activities, the description of the controller’s organisation and where the relevant decisions on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data are taken
;









Amendment 167


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point d








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(d)




view
 made in writing by the parties 
under investigation, as the case may be
, pursuant to 
Articles 14 and 17
;












(d)




views
 made in writing by the parties, pursuant to 
Article 14
;









Amendment 168


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point e








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment













(e)






views made in writing by complainants, as the case may be, pursuant to Articles 11, 12, and 15;










deleted







Amendment 169


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point f








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(f)


the relevant and reasoned objections which were not followed by the lead supervisory authority;












(f)


the relevant and reasoned objections which were not followed by the lead supervisory authority
, and the objections that the lead supervisory authority has rejected as not relevant or reasoned
;









Amendment 170


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point g








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(g)


the reasons on the basis of which the lead supervisory authority did not follow 
the relevant and reasoned
 objections or 
considered
 the objections not 
to be
 relevant or reasoned.













(g)


the reasons on the basis of which the lead supervisory authority did not follow objections or 
rejected
 the objections 
as
 not relevant or reasoned;










Amendment 171


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ga)






access to the joint case file.











Amendment 172


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






3.   The Board shall within 
four
 weeks of receiving the documents listed in paragraph 2 
identify retained relevant and reasoned objections
.




3.   The Board shall 
register the submission of a subject-matter to the dispute resolution mechanism
 within 
two
 weeks of receiving 
all of
 the documents listed in paragraph 2 
or it shall demand a resubmission that includes any missing information within another week. When registering the submission, the Board shall list and structure the disputes between supervisory authorities which form the scope of the procedure before the Board, and instantly provide them to all supervisory authorities
.






Amendment 173


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 3 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





3a.
   
Once all information specified in paragraph 2 have been received, the Chair of the Board is empowered to request from the lead supervisory authority or the supervisory authorities concerned any additional information, documents or clarifications necessary for the Board to take a binding decision concerning all of the matters which are the subject of the relevant and reasoned objections. The authorities shall provide this additional information no later than one week after having received the request.








Amendment 174


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 3 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





3b.
   
The supervisory authorities concerned may, within two weeks after having been provided with the submission pursuant to paragraph 3, submit other relevant information that they have on that case which was not included in the objections, including but not limited to, facts and documentation related to their objection.








Amendment 175


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 3 c (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





3c.
   
The ‘referral of the subject-matter’ pursuant to Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall mean the moment when all of the documents referred to in Article 22(2) are available and translated in accordance with Article 2d.








Amendment 176


Proposal for a regulation


Article 22 – paragraph 3 d (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





3d.
   
The prohibition provided for in Article 65(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for supervisory authorities to adopt a decision on the subject matter submitted to the Board during the periods referred to in Article 65(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall also apply during the periods referred in paragraph 3 of this Article.








Amendment 177


Proposal for a regulation


Article 23








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 23






deleted








Registration in relation to a decision under Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679




 






The Chair of the Board shall register the referral of a subject-matter to dispute resolution under Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 no later than one week after having received all of the following documents:




 












(a)






the draft decision or revised draft decision subject to the relevant and reasoned objections;








 












(b)






a summary of the relevant facts;








 












(c)






view made in writing by the parties under investigation, as the case may be, pursuant to Articles 14 and 17;








 












(d)






views made in writing by complainants, as the case may be, pursuant to Articles 11, 12 and 15;








 












(e)






the retained relevant and reasoned objections;








 












(f)






the reasons on the basis of which the lead supervisory authority did not follow the retained relevant and reasoned objections.








 





Amendment 178


Proposal for a regulation


Article 24








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 24






deleted








Statement of reasons prior to adoption of decision under Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679




 







1.
   
Prior to adopting the binding decision pursuant to Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the Chair of the Board shall, through the lead supervisory authority, provide the parties under investigation and/or, in the case of full or partial rejection of a complaint, the complainant, with a statement of reasons explaining the reasoning the Board intends to adopt in its decision. Where the Board intends to adopt a binding decision requiring the lead supervisory authority to amend its draft decision or revised draft decision, the Board shall decide whether such statement of reasons should be accompanied by the retained relevant and reasoned objections on the basis of which the Board intends to adopt its decision.





 







2.
   
The parties under investigation and/or, in the case of full or partial rejection of a complaint, the complainant, shall have one week from receipt of the statement of reasons referred to in paragraph 1 to make their views known.





 







3.
   
The deadline in paragraph 2 shall be extended by one week where the Board extends the period for adoption of the binding decision in accordance with Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.





 







4.
   
The period for adoption of the binding decision of the Board provided for in Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall not run during the periods provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3.





 





Amendment 179


Proposal for a regulation


Article 25








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 25






deleted








Procedure in relation to decision under Article 65(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679




 







1.
   
When referring a subject-matter to the Board under Article 65(1), point (b), of Regulation 2016/679, the supervisory authority referring the subject-matter regarding the competence for the main establishment shall provide the Board with all of the following documents:





 












(a)






a summary of the relevant facts;








 












(b)






the assessment of these facts as far as the conditions of Article 56(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 are concerned;








 












(c)






views made by the controller or processor whose main establishment is the subject of the referral;








 












(d)






the views of other supervisory authorities concerned by the referral;








 












(e)






any other document or information the referring supervisory authority considers relevant and necessary in order to find a resolution on the subject-matter.








 







2.
   
The Chair of the Board shall register the referral no later than one week after having received the documents referred to in paragraph 1.





 





Amendment 180


Proposal for a regulation


Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(c)


the views of the supervisory authority referring the subject-matter or the Commission as to whether, as the case may be, a supervisory authority was required to communicate the draft decision to the Board pursuant to Article 64(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or a supervisory authority did not follow an opinion of the Board issued pursuant to Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(c)


the views of the supervisory authority referring the subject-matter or the Commission as to whether, as the case may be, a supervisory authority was required to communicate the draft decision to the Board pursuant to Article 64(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or a supervisory authority did not follow an opinion of the Board issued pursuant to Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
, including an explanation of which points were not followed and a reference to the relevant part of the adopted decision
.









Amendment 181


Proposal for a regulation


Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1a.
   
The Chair of the Board shall inform all supervisory authorities of the referral made to the Board under paragraph 1, so as to allow the supervisory authorities to make their views known.








Amendment 182


Proposal for a regulation


Article 26 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






3.   The Chair of the Board shall register the referral no later than one week after having received the documents referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.




3.   The Chair of the Board shall register the referral no later than one week after having received 
all of
 the documents referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.






Amendment 183


Proposal for a regulation


Article 26 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article26a






 




Procedural determinations by the Board






 





1.
   
Pursuant to Article 66 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a supervisory authority may request from the Board to take an urgent binding decision in the form of a procedural determination on any procedural dispute arising between supervisory authorities in cases foreseen by this Regulation.







 





2.
   
Where the lead supervisory authority is of the view that it cannot possibly comply with a deadline pursuant to Article 4(1b) or Article 5a(3), especially because of the need for exceptionally complex factual investigations, it shall request from the Board an urgent binding decision pursuant to paragraph 1, regarding an extension of the deadline of up to nine more months. The supervisory authority shall demonstrate that despite its compliance with Article 2c(1), the extension sought is inevitable.







 





3.
   
Requests under paragraph 1 and 2 shall at least contain:







 










(a)






the facts relied upon and any evidence available to the authority or party;










 










(b)






the legal grounds for the request;










 










(c)






the determination pursuant to paragraph 1 or the deadline extension pursuant to paragraph 2 that the authority or party requests from the Board;










 





4.
   
Within two weeks, the Board shall determine the matter based on the information before it or it shall reject the application. Determinations are binding on the supervisory authorities.








Amendment 184


Proposal for a regulation


Article 26 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 26b






 




Right to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority






 





1.
   
Without prejudice to existing remedies under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each party to the procedure shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy:







 










(a)






where the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged does not use its powers to ensure that another supervisory authority progresses the procedure;










 










(b)






where a lead supervisory authority does not comply with deadlines as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and this Regulation; or










 










(c)






where a supervisory authority does not comply with a binding decision of the Board.










 





2.
   
Any party to the procedure or a not-for-profit body under Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may bring an action under paragraph 1, point (c) if it considers that the rights of a data subject under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 have been infringed as a result of the processing.







 





3.
   
Where a court or tribunal exercising the review pursuant to paragraph 1 finds that a supervisory authority has not fulfilled its duties, it shall have the power to order that supervisory authority to take the necessary action.








Amendment 185


Proposal for a regulation


Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


a summary of the relevant facts;












(a)


a summary of the relevant facts
, including evidence of an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
;









Amendment 186


Proposal for a regulation


Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


a description of the provisional measure adopted on 
its own
 territory, its duration and the reasons for adopting it, including the justification of the urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects;












(b)


a description of the provisional measure adopted on 
the
 territory 
of the Member State of the supervisory authority requesting the opinion
, its duration and the reasons for adopting it, including the justification of the urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects;









Amendment 187


Proposal for a regulation


Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point c








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(c)


a justification of the urgent need for final measures 
to be adopted on the territory of the Member State of the requesting supervisory authority
, including an explanation of the exceptional nature of circumstances requiring the adoption of the measures concerned.












(c)


a justification of the urgent need for final measures, including an explanation of the exceptional nature of circumstances requiring the adoption of the measures concerned.









Amendment 188


Proposal for a regulation


Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 










(ca)






where the requesting authority is not the lead supervisory authority, the views of the lead supervisory authority.











Amendment 189


Proposal for a regulation


Article 27 – paragraph 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






2.   The urgent opinion of the Board shall be addressed to 
the
 supervisory 
authority that submitted the request
. It shall be similar to an opinion within the meaning of Article 64(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and enable the 
requesting authority
 to maintain or amend 
its
 provisional measure in line with the obligations of Article 64(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.




2.   The urgent opinion of the Board shall be addressed to 
all
 supervisory 
authorities
. It shall be similar to an opinion within the meaning of Article 64(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and enable the 
authorities
 to maintain or amend provisional measure in line with the obligations of Article 64(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.






Amendment 190


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Urgent decisions under Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679


Urgent 
binding
 decisions under Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679





Amendment 191


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






1.   A request for an urgent decision of the Board pursuant to Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall be made no later than three weeks 
prior to the expiry
 of provisional measures adopted under Articles 61(8), 62(7) or 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. That request shall contain all of the following items:




1.   A request for an urgent 
binding
 decision of the Board pursuant to Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall be made no later than three weeks 
after the adoption
 of provisional measures adopted under Articles 61(8), 62(7) or 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. That request shall contain all of the following items:






Amendment 192


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point a








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(a)


a summary of the relevant facts;












(a)


a summary of the relevant facts
, including evidence of an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
;









Amendment 193


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(b)


the provisional measure adopted on the territory of the Member State of the supervisory authority requesting the decision, its duration and the reasons for adopting 
the provisional measures
, in particular the justification of the urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects;












(b)


the provisional measure adopted on the territory of the Member State of the supervisory authority requesting the decision, its duration and the reasons for adopting 
it
, in particular the justification of the urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects;









Amendment 194


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point c








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(c)


information on any investigatory measures taken on its own territory and replies received from 
the local establishment of
 the parties under investigation or any other information in the possession of the requesting supervisory authority;












(c)


information on any investigatory measures taken on its own territory and replies received from the parties under investigation or any other information in the possession of the requesting supervisory authority;









Amendment 195


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point d








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(d)


a justification of the urgent need for final measures to be adopted 
on the territory of the requesting supervisory authority
, bearing in mind the exceptional nature of circumstances requiring the adoption of the final measure, or proof that a supervisory authority failed to respond to a request 
under
 Article 
61(3)
 or 62(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;












(d)


a justification of the urgent need for final measures to be adopted, bearing in mind the exceptional nature of circumstances requiring the adoption of the final measure, or proof that a supervisory authority failed to 
provide the information requested under Article 61(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or failed to
 respond to a request 
pursuant to
 Article 
61(8)
 or 62(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;









Amendment 196


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point f








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











(f)


where 
applicable
, the views of the 
local establishment of
 the parties under investigation against which provisional measures were taken pursuant to Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.












(f)


where 
available
, the views of the parties
. In case the requesting authority is not the lead supervisory authority, the requesting authority shall grant the right to be heard to
 the parties under investigation against which provisional measures were taken pursuant to Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.









Amendment 197


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






2.   The urgent decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be addressed to the supervisory authority 
that submitted the request
 and shall 
enable the requesting authority to maintain or amend its provisional measure
.




2.   The urgent 
binding
 decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be addressed to the 
lead
 supervisory authority 
and all the supervisory authorities concerned
 and shall 
specify the supervisory authorities that would need to adopt final measures, if applicable, in light of the urgent opinion or decision of the Board pursuant to Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
.






Amendment 198


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






3.   Where the Board adopts an urgent binding decision indicating that final measures should be adopted, the supervisory authority to which the decision is addressed shall adopt such measures prior to the expiry of the provisional measures adopted under Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.




3.   Where the Board adopts an urgent binding decision indicating that final measures should be adopted, the supervisory authority 
or authorities
 to which the decision is addressed shall adopt such measures prior to the expiry of the provisional measures adopted under Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.






Amendment 199


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 – paragraph 4








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment






4.   
The
 supervisory authority that 
submitted the request referred to in paragraph 1
 shall notify its decision on the final measures to the 
establishment of the controller or processor on the territory of its Member State
 and inform the Board. Where the lead supervisory authority is not the requesting authority, the requesting authority shall inform the lead supervisory authority 
of
 the final 
measure
.




4.   
A
 supervisory authority that 
is responsible to adopt final measures
 shall notify its decision on the final measures to the 
parties under investigation
 and inform the Board. Where the lead supervisory authority is not the requesting authority, the requesting authority shall inform the 
parties under investigation against which the provisional measures were adopted about the Board’s decision and the final measures adopted by the
 lead supervisory authority
. The complaint-receiving supervisory authority shall inform the complainant about the Board’s decision and
 the final 
measures adopted by the lead supervisory authority
.






Amendment 200


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 28a






 




Remedies against procedural determinations






 




Remedies against procedural determinations by a supervisory authority under national law shall only be brought together with the remedy against the final material decision. Deadlines for remedies against procedural determinations under applicable national law are prolonged for the duration of the procedure before the supervisory authority.







Amendment 201


Proposal for a regulation


Article 28 b (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article28b






 




Enforcement Statistics






 




Supervisory authorities shall report the following numbers in their activity report under Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679:






 










(a)






the number of ex officio investigations initiated by the supervisory authority;










 










(b)






the number of ex officio investigations initiated by other supervisory authorities;










 










(c)






the number of complaints received, including the number that were rejected, dismissed, withdrawn, partly upheld, fully upheld or otherwise closed;










 










(d)






the number of legally binding decisions currently on appeal;










 










(e)






the number and average duration of open and decided procedures under (a) to (d) to date;










 










(f)






the number of each type of measure taken in accordance with Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or applicable national law;










 










(g)






the number and the amount of fines issued and collected under Article 83 and 84 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or relevant national law; and










 










(h)






the annual budget and the number of staff, by training, tasks and organizational units.










 





2.
   
Supervisory authorities shall publish the activity report for the past year without undue delay, but no later than by 30 June.







 





3.
   
The Board shall make the information of all supervisory authorities in paragraph 1 available to the public no later than 31 July of each year for the previous year.








(Article 28 b is placed in Chapter VII ‘General and final provisions’)


Amendment 202


Proposal for a regulation


Article 29








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Article 29






deleted








Beginning of time periods and definition of working day




 







1.
   
Time-limits provided for in or fixed by the supervisory authorities pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall be calculated in accordance with Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council



 (17)


.




 







2.
   
Time periods shall begin on the working day following the event to which the relevant provision of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or this Regulation refers.





 





 





Amendment 203


Proposal for a regulation


Article 30 – paragraph 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Chapters 
III and IV
 shall apply to ex officio investigations opened after the entry into force of this Regulation and to complaint-based investigations where the complaint was lodged after the entry into force of this Regulation.


Chapters 
I, II and III
 shall apply to ex officio investigations opened after the entry into force of this Regulation and to complaint-based investigations where the complaint was lodged after the entry into force of this Regulation.





Amendment 204


Proposal for a regulation


Article 30 – paragraph 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment







Chapter V
 shall apply to all cases submitted to dispute resolution under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 after the entry into force of this Regulation.




Chapters V and VI
 shall apply to all cases submitted to dispute resolution under Article 65 
and urgency procedure under Article 66(2) and (3)
 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 after the entry into force of this Regulation.





Amendment 205


Proposal for a regulation


Article 30 – paragraph 2 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Until... [six months from the date of application of this Regulation], the lead supervisory authority shall, upon request, provide all documents in its own file to other supervisory authorities by other electronic means.







Amendment 206


Proposal for a regulation


Article 30 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 




Article 30a






 




Evaluation and review






 




The Commission shall evaluate and review this Regulation as part of its reports to the European Parliament and to the Council under Article 97 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.







Amendment 207


Proposal for a regulation


Article 31 – title








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





Entry into force


Entry into force 
and application







Amendment 208


Proposal for a regulation


Article 31 – paragraph 1 a (new)








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment





 





1a.
   
It shall apply from … [one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation].







 




However, Article 2b(1), point(c), Article 2b(3), last sentence, Article 2c(2), last sentence, and (5), Article 2d(3) and (6), Articles 8(1) and 18(1), point (a) shall apply from... [six months from the date of application of this Regulation].







Amendment 209


Proposal for a regulation


Annex I – Part A – point 1








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











1.


Identification of person or entity filing the complaint












1.


Identification of person or entity filing the complaint










Where the complainant is a natural person, submit a form of identification.



 (1a)





 




Where the complaint is submitted by a body referred to in Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, submit proof that the body has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State.


Where the complaint is submitted by a body
, organisation or association
 referred to in Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, submit proof that the body
, organisation or association
 has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State.




Where the complaint is submitted on the basis of Article 80(1) of Regulation 2016/679, proof that the body lodging the complaint is acting on the basis of the mandate of a data subject.


Where the complaint is submitted on the basis of Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, proof that the body
, organisation or association
 lodging the complaint is acting on the basis of the mandate of a data subject.




 


 





 





Amendment 210


Proposal for a regulation


Annex I – Part A – point 2








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











2.


Contact details (1a)













2.


Contact details (1a)









Where the complaint is submitted electronically, email address.




The name, address and any other available contact details of the complainant, including,
 where the complaint is submitted electronically, email address.






Where the complaint is submitted by post, postal address.




 






Telephone number.




 




 


 









Amendment 211


Proposal for a regulation


Annex I – Part A – point 3








Text proposed by the Commission




Amendment











3.


Entity whose processing of your personal data infringes Regulation (EU) 2016/679












3.


Entity whose processing of your personal data infringes Regulation (EU) 2016/679








Provide all information in your possession to facilitate the identification of the entity which is the subject of your complaint.


Provide all information in your possession to facilitate the identification of the entity which is the subject of your complaint
, including the name, address and any other contact details of that entity.








(1)  The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A9-0045/2024).

(1a)  
            
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1.)



(17)  
            
Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (OJ L 124, 8.6.1971, p. 1).



(1a)  
            
For example, passport, driving licence, national ID.



(1a)  In the case a complaint is submitted by a body referred to in Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, all of the information in point 2 should be provided.

(1a)  In the case a complaint is submitted by a body referred to in Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, all of the information in point 2 should be provided.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1295/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)