natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
DPO’erne på deltid skal have den fornødne tid til arbejdet med databeskyttelse, og alle DPO’er skal have tilstrækkelige ressourcer til at udføre deres opgaver. De skal også underrettes mere fyldestgørende om behandling af personoplysninger i deres institution eller organ og skal, hvor det er relevant, underrette EDPS om behandlinger, der indebærer særlige risici for de berørte personer og derfor bør underkastes forudgående kontrol.
Part-time DPOs must have enough time to devote to data protection and all of them need to have enough resources to fulfil their duties. ey must also be notified more adequately of personal data processing within their institution or body and, where appropriate, notify the EDPS of any processing operations which entail specific risks for the people concerned and which therefore need to be prior checked.
I tilknytning til juni-mødet i Lissabon afholdt EDPS bistået af nogle erfarne DPO’er et seminar for nye DPO’er. Hovedpunkterne i forordningen blev analyseret med særlig fokus på praktiske spørgsmål af interesse for nye DPO’er ved tilrettelæggelsen af deres opgaver.
Back-to-back with the June meeting in Lisbon, a workshop for the new DPOs was organised by the EDPS with the help of some experienced DPOs. e main points of the regulation were analysed, focusing mainly on the practical issues which could help new DPOs to develop their tasks.
Generelt princip: artikel 27, stk. 1
General principle: Article 27(1)
Ifølge forordningens artikel 27, stk. 1, skal EDPS foretage forudgående kontrol af alle »behandlinger, der på grund af deres art, omfang og formål vil kunne indebære særlige risici for de registreredes rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder«.
Article 27(1) of the regulation provides that all ‘processing operations likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of
) Heri ikke medregnet eksisterende stillinger, der skulle genbesættes, f.eks. på grund af jobskifte.
In November 2006, a new forum of collaboration between the EDPS and the DPOs started, namely the setting-up of a working group on time limits for conservation of data, on blocking and on erasure. e Assistant EDPS and two staff members as well as some DPOs are meeting regularly to produce a paper that changing to another post.
EDPS skal afgive udtalelse senest to måneder efter modtagelsen af anmeldelsen. Hvis EDPS anmoder om yderligere oplysninger, suspenderes fristen på to måneder normalt, indtil EDPS har modtaget disse.
Period, suspension and extension e EDPS must deliver his opinion within two months following the receipt of the notification.
Denne suspensionsperiode inkluderer den periode (normalt syv kalenderdage), som den pågældende institutions/det pågældende organs DPO har til at fremsætte bemærkninger — og om nødvendigt fremsende yderligere oplysninger — vedrørende den endelige affattelse.
Should the EDPS make a request for further information, the period of two months is usually suspended until the EDPS has obtained it. is period of suspension days includes the time (normally seven calendar days) given to the DPO of the institution/body for comments — and further information if needed — on the final draft.
indebære sådanne risici. Denne liste er ikke udtømmende.
their nature, their scope or their purposes’ are to be subject to prior checking by the EDPS.
Andre tilfælde, som ikke er nævnt, vil kunne indebære særlige risici for de registreredes rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder og dermed begrunde, at EDPS foretager en forudgående kontrol.
Other cases not mentioned could pose specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects and hence justify prior checking by the EDPS.
F.eks. indebærer enhver behandling af personoplysninger, som berører fortrolighedsprincippet, jf. artikel 36, særlige risici, der kan begrunde, at EDPS foretager forudgående kontrol.
For example, any personal data processing operation that touches upon the principle of confidentiality, as set out in Article 36, implies specific risks that justify prior checking by the EDPS.
Et andet kriterium, der blev anlagt i 2006, er tilstedeværelsen af visse biometriske data ud over fotografier, eftersom karakteren af biometriske data, mulighederne for samkøring og de tekniske værktøjers nuværende stade kan føre til uventede og/eller uønskede resultater for de registrerede.
Another criterion, adopted in 2006, is the presence of some biometric data other than photographs alone, as the nature of biometrics, the possibilities of inter-linkage and the state of play of technical tools, may produce unexpected and/or undesirable results for data subjects.
Er det nødvendigt på grund af sagens komplekse karakter, kan den oprindelige frist på to måneder ligeledes forlænges med en ny periode på to måneder efter afgørelse truffet af EDPS, som skal meddeles den registeransvarlige inden udløbet af den oprindelige frist på to måneder.
If the complexity of the matter so requires, the initial two-month period may also be extended for a further two months by decision of the EDPS which must be notified to the controller prior to the expiry of the initial two-month period.
Indtil nu har der aldrig været sådanne tilfælde af stiltiende samtykke.
Up until now, this case of a tacit opinion has never arisen.
Forordningens artikel 27, stk. 5, bestemmer, at EDPS skal føre et register over alle de behandlinger, der anmeldes til forudgående kontrol.
Article 27(5) of the regulation provides that the EDPS must keep a register of all processing operations of which he has been notified for prior checking. is register must contain the information referred to in Article 25 and be open to public inspection.
Registret skal indeholde de oplysninger, der er omhandlet i artikel 25, og skal kunne konsulteres af enhver.
e basis for such a register is a notification form to be filled in by DPOs and sent to the EDPS. e need for further information is thus reduced as much as possible.
I artikel 27, stk. 2, er der opført en række behandlinger, som vil kunne indebære særlige risici for de registreredes rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder:a)Behandling af oplysninger om helbredsforhold og om mistanke om lovovertrædelser, lovovertrædelser, straffedomme eller sikkerhedsforanstaltninger (»sûreté« på fransk, dvs. foranstaltninger, der fastsættes i forbindelse med retssager).b)Behandlinger, som har til formål at evaluere aspekter af den registreredes personlige forhold, f.eks. hans evner, arbejdsindsats og adfærd.c)Behandlinger, som muliggør samkøring af oplysninger til forskellige formål uden hjemmel i national lovgivning eller i fællesskabslovgivningen.d)Behandlinger, som tager sigte på at udelukke personer fra at udøve en ret, modtage en ydelse eller opnå en kontrakt.
Article 27(2) lists a number of processing operations that are likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects: (a) processing of data relating to health and to suspected offences, offences, criminal convictions or security measures (sûreté in French, i.e. measures adopted in the framework of legal proceedings);(b) processing operations intended to evaluate personal aspects relating to the data subject, including his or her ability, efficiency and conduct;(c) processing operations allowing linkages, not provided for pursuant to national or Community legislation, between data processed for different purposes; (d) processing operations for the purpose of excluding individuals from a right, benefit or contract.
Grundlaget for et sådant register er en anmeldelsesformular, som DPO’erne skal udfylde og sende til EDPS. Behovet for yderligere oplysninger er dermed reduceret i det omfang, det er muligt.
In the interest of transparency, all information is included in the public register (except for the security measures which are not mentioned in the register) and is open to public inspection.
De kriterier, der var udviklet i de to foregående år(4),blev fortsat lagt til grund for fortolkningen af denne bestemmelse, både når det efter en anmeldelse fra en DPO blev besluttet, at forudgående kontrol ikke var påkrævet, og når der blev afgivet udtalelse i en høring om nødvendigheden af forudgående kontrol (jf. også punkt 2.3.6).
e criteria developed in the two previous years (4) continued to be applied in the interpretation of this provision, both when deciding that a notification from a DPO was not subject to prior checking, and when advising on a consultation as to the need of prior checking (see also paragraph 2.3.6.).
Anmeldelse/høring
Notification/consultation cation/consultation
Når EDPS har afgivet sin udtalelse, offentliggøres den.
Once the EDPS has delivered his opinion, it is made public.
Senere vil de ændringer, som den registeransvarlige har foretaget efter EDPS’ udtalelse, også blive anført i kortfattet form. Derved opnås to ting.
Later on, the changes made by the controller in the light of the EDPS opinion are also mentioned in summary form.
For det første holdes oplysningerne vedrørende en bestemt behandling ajour, og for det andet overholdes princippet om åbenhed.
On the one hand, the information on a given processing operation is kept up to date and, on the other, the transparency principle is complied with.
Alle disse oplysninger vil blive gjort tilgængelige på EDPS’ nye websted sammen med en sammenfatning af sagen.
All this information will be made available on the new website of the EDPS, together with a summary of the case.
)Jf. årsberetningen for 2005, punkt 2.3.1.
19 kg703914inside.indd 19
Udnævnelsen af EDPS og den assisterende EDPS trådte i kraft den 17. januar 2004.
bodies needed to ensure that processing operations which were then already underway were brought into conformity with the regulation within one year of that date (i.e. by 1 February 2002). e appointment of the EDPS and the Assistant EDPS entered into effect on 17 January 2004.
Udtalelser er struktureret som følger: en beskrivelse af sagsforløbet, et resumé af de faktiske forhold, en juridisk analyse og konklusioner.
Opinions are structured as follows: a description of proceedings; a summary of the facts; a legal analysis; conclusions.
Forudgående kontrol omfatter ikke kun behandlinger, der endnu ikke er indledt (»egentlig« forudgående kontrol), men også behandlinger, der er indledt før den 17. januar 2004, eller før forordningen trådte i kraft (»efterfølgende« forudgående kontrol).
Prior checks concern not only operations not yet in progress (‘proper’ prior checks), but also processing operations that started before 17 January 2004 or before the regulation came into force (ex post prior checks).
For at klare alle ubehandlede sager, der sandsynligvis skal underkastes forudgående kontrol, har EDPS anmodet de enkelte DPO’er om at analysere situationen i deres institution med hensyn til behandlinger i henhold til artikel 27.
In order to deal with the backlog of cases likely to be subject to prior checking, the EDPS requested the DPOs to analyse the situation of their institution concerning processing operations within the scope of Article 27.
Efter modtagelse af bidragene fra alle DPO’er blev en oversigt over sager, der skal underkastes forudgående kontrol, udarbejdet og efterfølgende forbedret.
Following the receipt of contributions from all DPOs, a list of cases subject to prior checking was made and subsequently refined. ned.
Den juridiske analyse begynder med en undersøgelse af, om en sag kræver, at der skal foretages forudgående kontrol.
e legal analysis starts with an examination of whether the case actually qualifies for prior checking.
Hvis sagen ikke hører ind under dem, der er opført i artikel 27, stk. 2, ser EDPS som nævnt ovenfor på den særlige risiko, der vil kunne opstå for den registreredes rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder.
As mentioned above, if the case does not fall within the scope of the cases listed in Article 27(2), the EDPS will assess the specific risk to rights and freedoms of the data subject.
Hvis sagen kræver, at der skal foretages forudgående kontrol, består den centrale del af den juridiske analyse i en undersøgelse af, om behandlingen er i overensstemmelse med forordningens relevante bestemmelser.
Once the case qualifies for prior checking, the core of the legal analysis is an examination of whether the processing operation complies with the relevant provisions of the regulation.
EDPS har hidtil sædvanligvis kunnet konkludere, at behandlingen ikke synes at indebære en overtrædelse af nogen bestemmelser i forordningen, forudsat at der tages hensyn til de fremsatte henstillinger.
In the conclusion, the EDPS has so far normally stated that the processing does not seem to involve a breach of any provision of the regulation, provided that the recommendations issued are taken into account.
I to udtalelser fremsat i 2006 (2006-301 og 2006-142) var konklusionerne anderledes: Behandlingerne var i modstrid med forordningen, og visse henstillinger skulle gennemføres for at bringe behandlingerne i overensstemmelse med denne.
In two opinions issued in 2006 (2006-301 and 2006-142), the conclusions were different: the processing operations were in breach of the regulation and some recommendations had to be implemented to bring them into compliance.
Der er blevet udarbejdet en håndbog for — ligesom inden for andre områder — at sikre, at alle arbejder på det samme grundlag, og at EDPS’ udtalelser vedtages efter en fuldstændig analyse af alle vigtige oplysninger.
A case manual has been drafted to guarantee, as in other areas, that the entire team works on the same basis and that the EDPS’s opinions are adopted after a complete analysis of all significant information.
Håndbogen strukturerer udtalelserne på grundlag af de samlede praktiske erfaringer og føres hele tiden ajour.
It provides a structure to opinions, based on accumulated practical experience and is continuously updated.
Den indeholder desuden en checkliste.
It also includes a checklist.
Der er oprettet et workflow-system for at sikre, at alle henstillinger i forbindelse med en bestemt sag bliver fulgt op, og eventuelt at alle håndhævelsesafgørelser overholdes (jf. punkt 2.3.7).
To allow for the most efficient use of the human resources available, the EDPS prioritised the work on ex post prior checking cases, setting the following priority categories: 1. medical files (both stricto sensu and containing health-related data);2. staff appraisal (including also future staff (recruit-ment));3. disciplinary procedures;4. social services;5. e-monitoring.
1.lægejournaler (såvel lægejournaler i snæver forstand som journaler med oplysninger om helbredsfor-hold)2.personalebedømmelse (herunder af kommende medarbejdere (rekruttering))3.disciplinære procedurer4.sociale tjenester5.elektronisk overvågning.
A workflow system is in place to make sure that all recommendations in a particular case are followed up and, where applicable, that all enforcement decisions are complied with (see paragraph 2.3.7.) ese prioritisation criteria apply only to ex post cases, as proper prior checking cases must be dealt with before the processing operation is implemented, following the plans of the institution or body.
I henhold til artikel 50 skulle alle Fællesskabets institu-
Article 50 provides that Community institutions and
Udtalelser om sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol i 2006
Opinions on prior checking cases issued in 2006
13 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol (12 udtalelser)
13 prior checking cases (12 opinions)
12 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
12 prior checking cases5 prior checking cases
Den Europæiske Centralbank
Court of Justice Investment Bank Parliament
5 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol (4 udtalelser)
(4 opinions)5 prior checking cases5 prior checking cases4 prior checking cases
Den Europæiske Investeringsbank
See also paragraph 2.3.6.
5 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
Analysis by institution/body
2 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
(3 opinions)3 prior checking cases3 prior checking cases2 prior checking cases1 prior checking case1 prior checking case
Den Interne Revisionstjeneste (IAS), elektronisk afstemning eller intern revisionstjeneste (Kommissionen), forvaltning af brugerkonti, standarder for brug af it-systemer og -tjenester (EUMC) og Streamline (Parlamentet). Jf. også punkt 2.3.6.
Most institutions and bodies have notified processing operations likely to present specific risks. e EDPS has fixed a deadline, spring 2007, to complete all noti-
Det Europæiske Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg
Committee f i fications of ex post prior checking.
Disse 57 sager svarer til en stigning i arbejdet med forudgående kontrol på 67,6 % sammenlignet med 2005. Denne arbejdsbyrde vil utvivlsomt vokse i 2007 (jf. nedenstående).
67 89 10 ose 57 cases represent an increase of 67.6 % of work in prior checking compared with 2005. is workload will increase with no doubt in 2007 (see below).
Agenturerne kræver en særlig kommentar.
Agencies deserve a specific comment.
I 2005 anmeldte kun ét agentur (OHIM) enkelte sager.
In 2005, only one agency (OHIM) notified some cases. e EDPS had assumed that many other agencies would notify processing operations in the near future, but this has not been the case.
EDPS regnede med, at mange andre agenturer ville anmelde behandlinger inden længe, men dette er ikke sket.
Some other agencies have started to notify processing operations; the related opinions will be issued in 2007 (see below ‘Notifications for prior checking received before 1 January 2007 and pending’).
Kun to andre agenturer indsendte anmeldelser vedrørende behandlinger, nemlig EUMC og Oversættelsescentret, idet sidstnævnte indsendte to anmeldelser vedrørende evalueringsspørgsmål og én vedrørende sygeorlov.
ing before implementing the processing operation. Two of those five prior checking cases were related to evaluation, one to emonitoring and two to other themes such as the sharing of a database online among European delegations in China or the independence of financial actors. e remaining 52 cases were ex post prior checking cases.
EDPS forventer bestemt flere anmeldelser fra agenturer, da nogle af dem, som netop er opret-
(5) e EDPS received 57 notifications but for practical reasons and due to the fact that some cases were linked to same purposes, six notifications (two of the ECB, two of the Council and two of the Parliament) were treated jointly. is is why 57 notifications were received and 54 opinions were issued.(6) Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.(7) European Personnel Selection Office (which relies on the DPO of the
Det Europæiske Personaleudvælgelseskontor (der benytter Kommissionens DPO).
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
(8)Det Europæiske Observationscenter for Racisme og Fremmedhad.(9)Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked.(10)Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig.
Commission).(8) European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.(9) Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.(10) European Anti-Fraud Office. ce.
Naturligvis forventes der også andre anmeldelser.
Other notifications are of course expected.
23 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
Category one (medical fi les)14 prior checking cases Category two (staff appraisal)23 prior checking cases
4 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
4 prior checking cases
2 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
Already five files were notified by the institutions (Commission (2), ECB, EIB and Council).
Kategori 1 omfatter selve lægejournalen og de forskellige oplysninger i denne (11 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol) og alle de procedurer, der er knyttet til godtgørelses- eller sygeforsikringsordninger (3 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol). Denne prioriterede kategori er næsten uændret målt i procentdel (26,5 %af sagerne i 2005, 24,6 % i 2006), men antallet af sager er steget betydeligt, hvilket viser, at institutionerne og organerne er opmærksomme på behovet for forudgående kontrol.
Category one includes the medical file itself and its different contents (11 prior checking cases) and all procedures linked to allowances or sickness schemes (three prior checking cases). is priority is nearly stable in percentage (26.5 % of cases in 2005, 24.6 % of cases in 2006) but the number of cases has increased significantly, showing that the institutions and bodies are aware of the need of a prior check.
Hvad angår de anmeldelser vedrørende efterfølgende kontrol, der ikke hører til disse prioriterede kategorier, kan de opdeles i to grupper.
Regarding the notifications of ex post cases which do not belong to those priority categories, they could be divided in two groups.
Det største kategoriområde er fortsat kategori 2, der vedrører evaluering af personale (23 sager ud af 57), selv om procentsatsen er faldende (56 % af sagerne i 2005, 40,4 % i 2006). Bedømmelse omfatter alle typer personale i Det Europæiske Fællesskab, herunder tjenestemænd, midlertidigt ansatte og kontraktansatte, og rekrutteringsprocedurer indgår også i denne kategori.
Work of the EDPS and the institutions and bodies e major category theme remains the second one, relating to the evaluation of staff (23 files out of the 57), even if the percentage is decreasing (56 % of cases in 2005, 40.4 % in 2006). e appraisal concerns all staff members of the European Community, including officials, temporary agents and contractual agents, including recruitment procedures.
Anmeldelserne vedrører ikke blot udvælgelses- og evalueringsprocedurer, men også certificerings- ogattestationsprocedurer.
Not only selection and evaluation procedures have been notified, but also certification and attestation procedures.
Det skal tilføjes, at disse 23 sager inkluderer de tre meget omfattende anmeldelser fra EPSO (vedrørende henholdsvis rekruttering af tjenestemænd, midlertidigt ansatte og kontraktansatte), der omhandler den rekrutteringsordning, som er etableret for alle EU-institutionerne.
It should be added that those 23 files include the three major noti- f i fications of EPSO (respectively relating to recruitment of officials, of temporary agents and contractual agents) which deal with the recruitment system set up for all the EU institutions.
Årsberetning 2006 har haft brug for, og antallet af suspensionsdage (tid, der er nødvendig til indhentning af oplysninger fra institutionerne og organerne).
) and the Council. e ‘major institutions’ have all ful- f i filled their obligation regarding this category, except the EESC and the CoR.
Anmeldelser om forudgående kontrol modtaget inden 1. januar 2007 og endnu ikke færdigbehandlede
Some agencies such as OHIM and EMCDDA have announced the sending of those notifications. cations.
Antal arbejdsdage for EDPS pr. forudgående kontrol: der er en stigning på kun 4,4 % eller 2,5 arbejdsdage mere end i 2005 (55,5 dage i 2005 og 57,9 i 2006). Tallet er fortsat tilfredsstillende i betragtning af de stadig mere komplekse anmeldelser, der indgives til EDPS.
Number of working days of the EDPS per prior check: this represents an increase of only 4.4 %, or 2.5 days more of work than in 2005 (55.5 days in 2005 and 57.9 in 2006). is remains a satisfactory figure considering the increasing complexity of the notifications sent to the EDPS.
Den ene er en sag med egentlig forudgående kontrol (»utilstrækkelig faglig indsats«, anmeldelse fra Revisionsretten, udtalelse fremsat allerede den 18. januar 2007).
Regarding the fourth category (social services), there are only two files, concerning the Council and the Commission. ose two notifications were very well developed and documented.
Antal forlængelsesdage, som EDPS har haft brug for: der er en stigning på 62,6 %, men i absolutte tal er det kun 2 dage mere end i 2005 (3,3 dage i 2005 og 5,4 dage i 2006).
Number of extension days for the EDPS: this represents an increase of 62.6 % but in absolute terms only two days more than in 2005 (3.3 days in 2005 and 5.4 days in 2006).
3 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
It is due mainly to the complexity of
Den Europæiske Centralbank
13) European Central Bank.14) European Court of Justice.
2 sager vedrørende forudgående kontrol
22 kg703914inside.indd 22
1 sag vedrørende forudgående kontrol
In the two first cases, a special meeting with the controller and the DPO was needed.