GDPR

The text of the GDPR. The texts have been con­ver­ted auto­ma­ti­cal­ly – we thank you for poin­ting out errors. The assign­ment of the reci­tals to indi­vi­du­al artic­les is not offi­ci­al and not cle­ar­ly defi­ned. As PDF you can find the GDPR with reci­tals here, and the Eng­lish ver­si­on is here to find. 
fold out | fold

Chap­ter I Gene­ral provisions

Artic­le 1 Sub­ject mat­ter and objectives

(1. This Regu­la­ti­on lays down rules rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and to the free move­ment of such data.
(2. This Regu­la­ti­on pro­tects the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, and in par­ti­cu­lar their right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data.
(3. The free flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on shall not be rest­ric­ted or pro­hi­bi­ted for rea­sons con­nec­ted with the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data.
Reci­tals
(1) The pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data is a fun­da­men­tal right. In accordance with Artic­le 8(1) of the Char­ter of Fun­da­men­tal Rights of the Euro­pean Uni­on (her­ein­af­ter “Char­ter”) and Artic­le 16(1) of the Trea­ty on the Func­tio­ning of the Euro­pean Uni­on (TFEU), ever­yo­ne has the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her.
(2) The prin­ci­ples and rules rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of their per­so­nal data should ensu­re that their fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms, and in par­ti­cu­lar their right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, are respec­ted, regard­less of their natio­na­li­ty or resi­dence. This Regu­la­ti­on should con­tri­bu­te to the com­ple­ti­on of an area of free­dom, secu­ri­ty and justi­ce and of an eco­no­mic uni­on, to eco­no­mic and social pro­gress, to the streng­thening and inte­gra­ti­on of eco­no­mies within the inter­nal mar­ket, and to the well-being of natu­ral persons.
(3) The pur­po­se of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (4 ) is to har­mo­ni­ze the rules rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of data and to ensu­re the free flow of per­so­nal data bet­ween Mem­ber States.
(4) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data should be in the ser­vice of man­kind. The right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data is not an unli­mi­t­ed right; it must be seen in the light of its socie­tal func­tion and balan­ced against other fun­da­men­tal rights, in accordance with the prin­ci­ple of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty. This Regu­la­ti­on respects all fun­da­men­tal rights and obser­ves all the free­doms and prin­ci­ples reco­g­nis­ed by the Char­ter and reflec­ted in the Euro­pean Trea­ties, in par­ti­cu­lar respect for pri­va­te and fami­ly life, home and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons, pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, free­dom of thought, con­sci­ence and reli­gi­on, free­dom of expres­si­on and infor­ma­ti­on, free­dom to con­duct a busi­ness, the right to an effec­ti­ve reme­dy and to a fair tri­al, and cul­tu­ral, reli­gious and lin­gu­istic diversity.
(5) Eco­no­mic and social inte­gra­ti­on resul­ting from a func­tio­ning inter­nal mar­ket has led to a signi­fi­cant increa­se in the cross-bor­der flow of per­so­nal data. The Uni­on-wide exch­an­ge of per­so­nal data bet­ween public and pri­va­te actors, inclu­ding natu­ral per­sons, asso­cia­ti­ons and under­ta­kings, has increa­sed. Uni­on law requi­res Mem­ber Sta­te admi­ni­stra­ti­ons to coope­ra­te and exch­an­ge per­so­nal data in order to car­ry out their duties or to per­form tasks for an aut­ho­ri­ty of ano­ther Mem­ber State.
(6) Rapid tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ments and glo­ba­lizati­on have crea­ted new chal­lenges for data pro­tec­tion. The sca­le of coll­ec­tion and exch­an­ge of per­so­nal data has increa­sed impres­si­ve­ly. Tech­no­lo­gy makes it pos­si­ble for pri­va­te com­pa­nies and public aut­ho­ri­ties to access per­so­nal data on an unpre­ce­den­ted sca­le in the cour­se of their acti­vi­ties. Incre­a­sing­ly, indi­vi­du­als are also making infor­ma­ti­on publicly available world­wi­de. Tech­no­lo­gy has trans­for­med eco­no­mic and social life and is likely to fur­ther faci­li­ta­te the move­ment of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on and the trans­fer of data to third count­ries and inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, while ensu­ring a high level of data protection.
(7) The­se deve­lo­p­ments call for a sound, more coher­ent and cle­ar­ly enforceable legal frame­work in the area of data pro­tec­tion in the Uni­on, as it is of gre­at importance to crea­te a basis of trust, which the digi­tal eco­no­my urgen­tly needs in order to con­ti­n­ue to grow in the inter­nal mar­ket. Natu­ral per­sons should have con­trol over their own data. Natu­ral per­sons, the eco­no­my and the sta­te should have more secu­ri­ty in legal and prac­ti­cal terms.
(8. Whe­re this Regu­la­ti­on pro­vi­des for cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons or rest­ric­tions of its pro­vi­si­ons by the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, Mem­ber Sta­tes may incor­po­ra­te parts of this Regu­la­ti­on into their natio­nal law to the ext­ent neces­sa­ry to ensu­re con­si­sten­cy and to make natio­nal law more com­pre­hen­si­ble to the per­sons to whom it applies.
(9) The objec­ti­ves and prin­ci­ples of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC remain valid, but the Direc­ti­ve has not pre­ven­ted dif­fe­ren­ces in data pro­tec­tion prac­ti­ces across the Uni­on, legal uncer­tain­ty or wide­spread public per­cep­ti­on of signi­fi­cant risks to the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als, in par­ti­cu­lar in rela­ti­on to the use of the Inter­net. Dif­fe­ren­ces in the level of pro­tec­tion of the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in the Mem­ber Sta­tes, in par­ti­cu­lar in the right to the pro­tec­tion of such data, may hin­der the free flow of such data throug­hout the Uni­on. The­se dif­fe­ren­ces in the level of pro­tec­tion may the­r­e­fo­re con­sti­tu­te a bar­ri­er to the exer­cise of eco­no­mic acti­vi­ties throug­hout the Uni­on, distort com­pe­ti­ti­on and pre­vent public aut­ho­ri­ties from ful­fil­ling their obli­ga­ti­ons under Uni­on law. They are explai­ned by the dif­fe­ren­ces in the trans­po­si­ti­on and appli­ca­ti­on of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC.
(10) In order to ensu­re a con­si­stent and high level of data pro­tec­tion for natu­ral per­sons and to remo­ve bar­riers to the flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on, the level of pro­tec­tion of the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of such data should be equi­va­lent in all Mem­ber Sta­tes. The rules pro­tec­ting the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data should be applied even­ly and con­sist­ent­ly throug­hout the Uni­on. With regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on or for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler, Mem­ber Sta­tes should be able to main­tain or intro­du­ce natio­nal pro­vi­si­ons fur­ther spe­ci­fy­ing the appli­ca­ti­on of the rules laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on. In con­junc­tion with the gene­ral and hori­zon­tal legis­la­ti­on on data pro­tec­tion imple­men­ting Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC, the­re are seve­ral sec­tor-spe­ci­fic laws in Mem­ber Sta­tes in are­as that requi­re more spe­ci­fic pro­vi­si­ons. This Regu­la­ti­on also pro­vi­des lati­tu­de for Mem­ber Sta­tes to spe­ci­fy their rules, inclu­ding for the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data (her­ein­af­ter “sen­si­ti­ve data”). In this regard, this Regu­la­ti­on does not pre­clude legis­la­ti­on of the Mem­ber Sta­tes spe­ci­fy­ing the cir­cum­stances of par­ti­cu­lar pro­ce­s­sing situa­tions, inclu­ding a more pre­cise deter­mi­na­ti­on of the con­di­ti­ons under which the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data is lawful.
(11) Effec­ti­ve pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data throug­hout the Uni­on requi­res the streng­thening and pre­cise defi­ni­ti­on of the rights of data sub­jects and the streng­thening of obli­ga­ti­ons for tho­se who pro­cess and deci­de on per­so­nal data, as well as – in the Mem­ber Sta­tes – equal powers to moni­tor and ensu­re com­pli­ance with the rules on the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data and equal sanc­tions in the event of their breach.
(12) Artic­le 16(2) of the TFEU empowers the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and the Coun­cil to adopt mea­su­res rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and to the free move­ment of such data.
(13) In order to ensu­re an equi­va­lent level of data pro­tec­tion for natu­ral per­sons in the Uni­on and to eli­mi­na­te dis­pa­ri­ties which could hin­der the free flow of per­so­nal data in the inter­nal mar­ket, a Regu­la­ti­on is neces­sa­ry to pro­vi­de legal cer­tain­ty and trans­pa­ren­cy for eco­no­mic ope­ra­tors, inclu­ding micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses, pro­vi­des natu­ral per­sons in all Mem­ber Sta­tes with the same level of enforceable rights, pro­vi­des for the same obli­ga­ti­ons and respon­si­bi­li­ties for con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors, and ensu­res an equi­va­lent level of con­trol over the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and equi­va­lent sanc­tions in all Mem­ber Sta­tes, as well as effec­ti­ve coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of the dif­fe­rent Mem­ber Sta­tes. The pro­per func­tio­ning of the inter­nal mar­ket requi­res that the free flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on should not be rest­ric­ted or pro­hi­bi­ted for rea­sons con­nec­ted with the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data. In order to take into account the spe­ci­fic situa­ti­on of micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses, this Regu­la­ti­on con­ta­ins a dero­ga­ti­on as regards the kee­ping of a regi­ster for enti­ties employing fewer than 250 staff. Fur­ther­mo­re, the Uni­on insti­tu­ti­ons and bodies, as well as the Mem­ber Sta­tes and their super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, are encou­ra­ged to take into account the spe­ci­fic needs of micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses when app­ly­ing this Regu­la­ti­on. For the defi­ni­ti­on of the term “Micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses”, Artic­le 2 of the Annex to Com­mis­si­on Recom­men­da­ti­on 2003/361/EC (5 ) should prevail.

Artic­le 2 Mate­ri­al scope of application

(This Regu­la­ti­on shall app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data whol­ly or part­ly by auto­ma­tic means and to the pro­ce­s­sing other­wi­se than by auto­ma­tic means of per­so­nal data which are stored or are inten­ded to be stored in a fil­ing system.
(2. This Regu­la­ti­on shall not app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data
a) in the con­text of an acti­vi­ty that does not fall within the scope of Uni­on law,
b) by Mem­ber Sta­tes in the con­text of acti­vi­ties fal­ling within the scope of Tit­le V, Chap­ter 2, TEU,
c) by natu­ral per­sons for the pur­po­se of car­ry­ing out exclu­si­ve­ly per­so­nal or fami­ly activities,
d) by the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties for the pur­po­se of pre­ven­ting, inve­sti­ga­ting, detec­ting or pro­se­cu­ting cri­mi­nal offen­ses or the exe­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal pen­al­ties, inclu­ding the pro­tec­tion against and the pre­ven­ti­on of thre­ats to public safety.
(3. Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 45/2001 shall app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by Uni­on insti­tu­ti­ons, bodies, offices and agen­ci­es. Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 45/2001 and other Uni­on acts gover­ning such pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data shall be ali­gned with the prin­ci­ples and rules laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on, in accordance with Artic­le 98.
(4. This Regu­la­ti­on shall be wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the appli­ca­ti­on of Direc­ti­ve 2000/31/EC and, more spe­ci­fi­cal­ly, to the pro­vi­si­ons of Artic­les 12 to 15 of that Direc­ti­ve con­cer­ning the lia­bi­li­ty of intermediaries.
Reci­tals
(14) The pro­tec­tion affor­ded by this Regu­la­ti­on should app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of natu­ral per­sons, wha­te­ver their natio­na­li­ty or resi­dence. This Regu­la­ti­on does not app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of legal per­sons and in par­ti­cu­lar of com­pa­nies incor­po­ra­ted as legal per­sons, inclu­ding the name, legal form or cont­act details of the legal person.
(15) In order to avo­id a serious risk of cir­cum­ven­ti­on, the pro­tec­tion of natu­ral per­sons should be tech­no­lo­gy neu­tral and not depend on the tech­ni­ques used. The pro­tec­tion of natu­ral per­sons should app­ly to auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data as well as to manu­al pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data whe­re the per­so­nal data are stored or are inten­ded to be stored in a file system. Files or uucoll­ec­tions of files, as well as their cover pages, which are not orga­ni­zed accor­ding to spe­ci­fic cri­te­ria, should not fall within the scope of this Regulation.
(16) This Regu­la­ti­on does not app­ly to mat­ters con­cer­ning the pro­tec­tion of fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms and the free flow of per­so­nal data in rela­ti­on to acti­vi­ties which fall out­side the scope of Uni­on law, such as acti­vi­ties con­cer­ning natio­nal secu­ri­ty. This Regu­la­ti­on shall not app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data car­ri­ed out by Mem­ber Sta­tes in the frame­work of the Union’s com­mon for­eign and secu­ri­ty policy.
(17) Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 45/2001 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (6) applies to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by Uni­on insti­tu­ti­ons, bodies, offices and agen­ci­es. Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 45/2001 and other Uni­on acts gover­ning such pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data should be ali­gned with the prin­ci­ples and rules laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on and applied in the light of this Regu­la­ti­on. In order to ensu­re a sound and coher­ent legal frame­work in the area of data pro­tec­tion in the Uni­on, the neces­sa­ry adap­t­ati­ons to Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 45/2001 should be made fol­lo­wing the adop­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, so that they can be applied at the same time as this Regulation.
(18) This Regu­la­ti­on does not app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data car­ri­ed out by a natu­ral per­son for the exer­cise of exclu­si­ve­ly per­so­nal or fami­ly acti­vi­ties and thus unre­la­ted to any pro­fes­sio­nal or eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty. Per­so­nal or fami­ly acti­vi­ties could also include the kee­ping of a cor­re­spon­dence or address lists or the use of social net­works and online acti­vi­ties in the con­text of such acti­vi­ties. Howe­ver, this Regu­la­ti­on applies to con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors that pro­vi­de the tools for pro­ce­s­sing per­so­nal data for such per­so­nal or fami­ly activities.
(19) The pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties for the pur­po­ses of the pre­ven­ti­on, inve­sti­ga­ti­on, detec­tion or pro­se­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal offen­ces or the exe­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal pen­al­ties, inclu­ding the safe­guar­ding against and the pre­ven­ti­on of thre­ats to public secu­ri­ty, as well as the free move­ment of such data, are gover­ned by a spe­ci­fic Uni­on legal instru­ment. The­r­e­fo­re, this Regu­la­ti­on should not app­ly to pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties of this type. Howe­ver, per­so­nal data pro­ce­s­sed by public aut­ho­ri­ties under this Regu­la­ti­on, when used for the abo­ve pur­po­ses, should be sub­ject to a more spe­ci­fic Uni­on act, name­ly Direc­ti­ve (EU) 2016/680 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (7). Mem­ber Sta­tes may ent­rust com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties within the mea­ning of Direc­ti­ve (EU) 2016/680 with tasks which are not neces­s­a­ri­ly car­ri­ed out for the pur­po­ses of the pre­ven­ti­on, inve­sti­ga­ti­on, detec­tion or pro­se­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal offen­ces or the exe­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal pen­al­ties, inclu­ding the safe­guar­ding against and the pre­ven­ti­on of thre­ats to public secu­ri­ty, so that the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for tho­se other pur­po­ses falls within the scope of this Regu­la­ti­on to the ext­ent that it falls within the scope of Uni­on law. With regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by tho­se aut­ho­ri­ties for pur­po­ses fal­ling within the scope of this Regu­la­ti­on, Mem­ber Sta­tes should be able to main­tain or intro­du­ce more spe­ci­fic pro­vi­si­ons in order to adapt the appli­ca­ti­on of the rules of this Regu­la­ti­on. Tho­se pro­vi­si­ons may spe­ci­fy more pre­cis­e­ly the con­di­ti­ons for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by tho­se com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties for tho­se other pur­po­ses, taking into account the con­sti­tu­tio­nal, orga­nizatio­nal and admi­ni­stra­ti­ve struc­tu­re of the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned. To the ext­ent that this Regu­la­ti­on applies to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by pri­va­te par­ties, it should pro­vi­de that Mem­ber Sta­tes may, under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons, rest­rict some obli­ga­ti­ons and rights by means of legis­la­ti­on whe­re such rest­ric­tion con­sti­tu­tes a neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te mea­su­re in a demo­cra­tic socie­ty for the pro­tec­tion of cer­tain important inte­rests, inclu­ding public secu­ri­ty and the pre­ven­ti­on, inve­sti­ga­ti­on, detec­tion and pro­se­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal offen­ces or the exe­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal pen­al­ties, inclu­ding the safe­guar­ding against and the pre­ven­ti­on of thre­ats to public secu­ri­ty. This is rele­vant, for exam­p­le, in the con­text of com­ba­ting money laun­de­ring or the work of foren­sic laboratories.
(20) While this Regu­la­ti­on applies, inter alia, to the acti­vi­ties of courts and other judi­cial aut­ho­ri­ties, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law could spe­ci­fy the details of the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons and pro­ce­s­sing pro­ce­du­res in the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by courts and other judi­cial aut­ho­ri­ties. In order to ensu­re that the inde­pen­dence of the judi­cia­ry in the exer­cise of its judi­cial func­tions, inclu­ding its decis­i­on-making, is not com­pro­mi­sed, super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should not be com­pe­tent for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by courts in the cour­se of their judi­cial acti­vi­ties. It should be pos­si­ble to ent­rust the super­vi­si­on of such data pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons to spe­ci­fic bodies within the judi­cial system of the Mem­ber Sta­te, which should, in par­ti­cu­lar, ensu­re com­pli­ance with the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on, make jud­ges and pro­se­cu­tors more awa­re of their obli­ga­ti­ons under this Regu­la­ti­on and deal with com­plaints rela­ting to such data pro­ce­s­sing operations.
(21) This Regu­la­ti­on is wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the appli­ca­ti­on of Direc­ti­ve 2000/31/EC of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (8) and in par­ti­cu­lar of the pro­vi­si­ons of Artic­les 12 to 15 of that Direc­ti­ve con­cer­ning the lia­bi­li­ty of pro­vi­ders of pure inter­me­dia­ry ser­vices. That Direc­ti­ve is inten­ded to con­tri­bu­te to the pro­per func­tio­ning of the inter­nal mar­ket by ensu­ring the free move­ment of infor­ma­ti­on socie­ty ser­vices bet­ween Mem­ber States.

Artic­le 3 Ter­ri­to­ri­al scope

(1. This Regu­la­ti­on shall app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data inso­far as it is car­ri­ed out in the con­text of the acti­vi­ties of an estab­lish­ment of a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on, regard­less of whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing takes place in the Union.
(2. This Regu­la­ti­on shall app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of data sub­jects loca­ted in the Uni­on by a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor not estab­lished in the Uni­on whe­re the data pro­ce­s­sing rela­tes to
a) offer goods or ser­vices to data sub­jects in the Uni­on, regard­less of whe­ther a payment is to be made by such data subjects;
b) obser­ve the beha­vi­or of per­sons con­cer­ned, inso­far as their beha­vi­or takes place in the Union.
(This Regu­la­ti­on shall app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by a con­trol­ler not estab­lished in the Uni­on in a place gover­ned by the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te by vir­tue of public inter­na­tio­nal law.
Reci­tals
(22) Any pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in the con­text of the acti­vi­ties of an estab­lish­ment of a con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on should be car­ri­ed out in accordance with this Regu­la­ti­on, whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing takes place in or out­side the Uni­on. Estab­lish­ment implies the effec­ti­ve and actu­al exer­cise of an acti­vi­ty by a fixed estab­lish­ment. The legal form of such an estab­lish­ment, whe­ther it is a branch or a sub­si­dia­ry with its own legal per­so­na­li­ty, is not decisi­ve in this respect.
(23) In order not to depri­ve a natu­ral per­son of the pro­tec­tion affor­ded under this Regu­la­ti­on, the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of data sub­jects loca­ted in the Uni­on by a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor not estab­lished in the Uni­on should be sub­ject to this Regu­la­ti­on whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out for the pur­po­se of offe­ring goods or ser­vices, whe­ther in return for payment or free of char­ge, to tho­se data sub­jects. In order to deter­mi­ne whe­ther that con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor offers goods or ser­vices to data sub­jects loca­ted in the Uni­on, it should be estab­lished whe­ther the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has an obvious inten­ti­on to offer ser­vices to data sub­jects in one or more Mem­ber Sta­tes of the Uni­on. While the mere acce­s­si­bi­li­ty of the controller’s, processor’s or intermediary’s web­site in the Uni­on, an email address or other cont­act details, or the use of a lan­guage com­mon­ly used in the third coun­try whe­re the con­trol­ler is estab­lished is not a suf­fi­ci­ent indi­ca­ti­on for this pur­po­se, other fac­tors such as the use of a lan­guage or cur­ren­cy, com­mon­ly used in one or more Mem­ber Sta­tes, com­bi­ned with the pos­si­bi­li­ty to order goods and ser­vices in that other lan­guage, or the men­ti­on of cus­to­mers or users loca­ted in the Uni­on, may indi­ca­te that the con­trol­ler intends to offer goods or ser­vices to per­sons in the Union.
(24) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of data sub­jects loca­ted in the Uni­on by a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor not estab­lished in the Uni­on should also be sub­ject to this Regu­la­ti­on whe­re it is for the pur­po­se of moni­to­ring the beha­viour of tho­se data sub­jects inso­far as their beha­viour takes place in the Uni­on. Whe­ther a pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ty is for the pur­po­se of moni­to­ring the beha­viour of data sub­jects should be deter­mi­ned by the track­ing of their Inter­net acti­vi­ties, inclu­ding the pos­si­ble sub­se­quent use of per­so­nal data pro­ce­s­sing tech­ni­ques which crea­te a pro­fi­le of a natu­ral per­son which is inten­ded, in par­ti­cu­lar, to form the basis for decis­i­ons con­cer­ning him or her or to ana­ly­ze or pre­dict his or her per­so­nal pre­fe­ren­ces, beha­vi­ors or habits.
(25) Whe­re the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te is appli­ca­ble under inter­na­tio­nal law, for exam­p­le in a diplo­ma­tic or con­su­lar repre­sen­ta­ti­on of a Mem­ber Sta­te, the Regu­la­ti­on should also app­ly to a con­trol­ler not estab­lished in the Union.

Artic­le 4 Definitions

For the pur­po­ses of this Regu­la­ti­on, the term: 1.per­so­nal data” any infor­ma­ti­on rela­ting to an iden­ti­fi­ed or iden­ti­fia­ble natu­ral per­son (her­ein­af­ter “Per­son con­cer­ned”); an iden­ti­fia­ble per­son is one who can be iden­ti­fi­ed, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, in par­ti­cu­lar by refe­rence to an iden­ti­fier such as a name, an iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on num­ber, loca­ti­on data, an online iden­ti­fier or to one or more fac­tors spe­ci­fic to the phy­si­cal, phy­sio­lo­gi­cal, gene­tic, men­tal, eco­no­mic, cul­tu­ral or social iden­ti­ty of that natu­ral per­son;
Reci­tals
(26) The prin­ci­ples of data pro­tec­tion should app­ly to any infor­ma­ti­on rela­ting to an iden­ti­fi­ed or iden­ti­fia­ble natu­ral per­son. Per­so­nal data sub­ject to pseud­ony­mizati­on which could be attri­bu­ted to a natu­ral per­son by refe­rence to addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on should be con­side­red as infor­ma­ti­on rela­ting to an iden­ti­fia­ble natu­ral per­son. To deter­mi­ne whe­ther a natu­ral per­son is iden­ti­fia­ble, account should be taken of any means rea­son­ab­ly likely to be used by the con­trol­ler or by any other per­son to iden­ti­fy the natu­ral per­son, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, such as sing­ling out. In deter­mi­ning whe­ther means are gene­ral­ly likely to be used to iden­ti­fy the natu­ral per­son, all objec­ti­ve fac­tors, such as the cost of iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on and the time requi­red for it, should be taken into account, taking into account the tech­no­lo­gy and tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ments available at the time of the pro­ce­s­sing. The prin­ci­ples of data pro­tec­tion should the­r­e­fo­re not app­ly to anony­mous infor­ma­ti­on, that is, infor­ma­ti­on which does not rela­te to an iden­ti­fi­ed or iden­ti­fia­ble natu­ral per­son, or per­so­nal data which has been anony­mi­zed in such a way that the data sub­ject can­not be iden­ti­fi­ed or can no lon­ger be iden­ti­fi­ed. This Regu­la­ti­on the­r­e­fo­re does not con­cern the pro­ce­s­sing of such anony­mous data, inclu­ding for sta­tis­ti­cal or rese­arch purposes.
(27) This Regu­la­ti­on does not app­ly to the per­so­nal data of decea­sed per­sons. Mem­ber Sta­tes may pro­vi­de for rules con­cer­ning the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of decea­sed persons.
(28) The appli­ca­ti­on of pseud­ony­mizati­on to per­so­nal data can redu­ce risks to data sub­jects and assist con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors in com­ply­ing with their data pro­tec­tion obli­ga­ti­ons. By expli­ci­t­ly intro­du­cing the “Pseud­ony­mizati­on” in this Regu­la­ti­on is not inten­ded to exclude other data pro­tec­tion measures.
(29) In order to incen­ti­vi­ze the use of pseud­ony­mizati­on in the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, pseud­ony­mizati­on mea­su­res, but allo­wing for gene­ral ana­ly­sis, should be pos­si­ble with the same con­trol­ler, if that con­trol­ler has taken the neces­sa­ry tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re – for the pro­ce­s­sing in que­sti­on – the imple­men­ta­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, while ensu­ring that addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on enab­ling the per­so­nal data to be attri­bu­ted to a spe­ci­fic data sub­ject is kept sepa­ra­te­ly. The con­trol­ler of the per­so­nal data, should indi­ca­te the aut­ho­ri­zed per­sons with this controller.
(30) Natu­ral per­sons may be assi­gned online iden­ti­fiers such as IP addres­ses and coo­kie iden­ti­fiers that pro­vi­de his device or soft­ware appli­ca­ti­ons and tools or pro­to­cols, or other iden­ti­fiers such as radio fre­quen­cy iden­ti­fiers. This may lea­ve traces that, espe­ci­al­ly in com­bi­na­ti­on with uni­que iden­ti­fiers and other infor­ma­ti­on recei­ved by the ser­ver, may be used to pro­fi­le and iden­ti­fy the natu­ral persons.
2.Pro­ce­s­sing” means any ope­ra­ti­on or set of ope­ra­ti­ons which is per­for­med upon per­so­nal data, whe­ther or not by auto­ma­tic means, such as coll­ec­tion, recor­ding, orga­nizati­on, fil­ing, sto­rage, adap­t­ati­on or altera­ti­on, retrie­val, con­sul­ta­ti­on, use, dis­clo­sure by trans­mis­si­on, dis­se­mi­na­ti­on or other­wi­se making available, ali­gnment or com­bi­na­ti­on, rest­ric­tion, era­su­re or des­truc­tion. 3.Rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing” the mar­king of stored per­so­nal data with the aim of limi­ting their future pro­ce­s­sing; 4.Pro­fil­ing” any auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data which con­sists in using such per­so­nal data to eva­lua­te cer­tain per­so­nal aspects rela­ting to a natu­ral per­son, in par­ti­cu­lar to ana­ly­ze or pre­dict aspects rela­ting to that natu­ral person’s per­for­mance at work, eco­no­mic situa­ti­on, health, per­so­nal pre­fe­ren­ces, inte­rests, relia­bi­li­ty, beha­vi­or, loca­ti­on, or chan­ge of loca­ti­on. 5.Pseud­ony­mizati­on” the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in such a way that the per­so­nal data can no lon­ger be attri­bu­ted to a spe­ci­fic data sub­ject wit­hout the use of addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on, pro­vi­ded that such addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on is kept sepa­ra­te­ly and is sub­ject to tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re that the per­so­nal data is not attri­bu­ted to an iden­ti­fi­ed or iden­ti­fia­ble natu­ral per­son.”; 6.File system“any struc­tu­red coll­ec­tion of per­so­nal data acce­s­si­ble accor­ding to spe­ci­fi­ed cri­te­ria, whe­ther such coll­ec­tion is main­tai­ned cen­tral­ly, decen­tral­ly, or on a func­tion­al or geo­gra­phic basis. 7.Respon­si­ble“the natu­ral or legal per­son, public aut­ho­ri­ty, agen­cy or other body which alo­ne or joint­ly with others deter­mi­nes the pur­po­ses and means of the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data; whe­re the pur­po­ses and means of such pro­ce­s­sing are deter­mi­ned by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, the con­trol­ler or the spe­ci­fic cri­te­ria for its desi­gna­ti­on may be pro­vi­ded for by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law; 8.Pro­ces­sor” a natu­ral or legal per­son, public aut­ho­ri­ty, agen­cy or other body which pro­ce­s­ses per­so­nal data on behalf of the con­trol­ler; 9.Recei­ver” means a natu­ral or legal per­son, public aut­ho­ri­ty, agen­cy or other body to whom per­so­nal data are dis­c­lo­sed, whe­ther or not a third par­ty. Howe­ver, public aut­ho­ri­ties that may recei­ve per­so­nal data in the con­text of a spe­ci­fic inve­sti­ga­ti­on man­da­te under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law shall not be con­side­red as reci­pi­en­ts; the pro­ce­s­sing of such data by the afo­re­men­tio­ned aut­ho­ri­ties shall be car­ri­ed out in accordance with the appli­ca­ble data pro­tec­tion rules, in line with the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing; 10.Third” means a natu­ral or legal per­son, public aut­ho­ri­ty, agen­cy or other body, other than the data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler, the pro­ces­sor and the per­sons who, under the direct respon­si­bi­li­ty of the con­trol­ler or the pro­ces­sor, are aut­ho­ri­zed to pro­cess the per­so­nal data. 11.Con­sent” of the data sub­ject means any free­ly given spe­ci­fic, infor­med and unam­bi­guous indi­ca­ti­on of his or her wis­hes in the form of a state­ment or other unam­bi­guous affir­ma­ti­ve act by which the data sub­ject signi­fi­es his or her agree­ment to per­so­nal data rela­ting to him or her being pro­ce­s­sed;
Reci­tals
(32) Con­sent should be given by a clear affir­ma­ti­ve act indi­ca­ting vol­un­t­a­ri­ly, on a case-by-case basis, in an infor­med and unam­bi­guous man­ner, that the data sub­ject cons­ents to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to him or her, such as a writ­ten state­ment, which may also be given elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, or an oral state­ment. This could be done, for exam­p­le, by ticking a box when visi­ting a web­site, by sel­ec­ting tech­ni­cal set­tings for infor­ma­ti­on socie­ty ser­vices or by any other state­ment or con­duct by which the data sub­ject unam­bi­guous­ly indi­ca­tes his or her con­sent to the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing of his or her per­so­nal data in the rele­vant con­text. Silence, boxes alre­a­dy ticked or inac­tion by the data sub­ject should the­r­e­fo­re not con­sti­tu­te con­sent. Con­sent should cover all pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out for the same pur­po­se or pur­po­ses. If the pro­ce­s­sing ser­ves mul­ti­ple pur­po­ses, con­sent should be given for all such pro­ce­s­sing pur­po­ses. If the data sub­ject is reque­sted to give con­sent by elec­tro­nic means, the request must be made in a clear and con­cise man­ner and wit­hout unneces­sa­ry inter­rup­ti­on of the ser­vice for which con­sent is given.
(33) Often, the pur­po­se of the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses can­not be ful­ly spe­ci­fi­ed at the time when the per­so­nal data are coll­ec­ted. The­r­e­fo­re, data sub­jects should be allo­wed to give their con­sent for cer­tain are­as of sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch if this is done in com­pli­ance with the accept­ed ethi­cal stan­dards of sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch. Data sub­jects should be given the oppor­tu­ni­ty to give their con­sent only for cer­tain are­as of rese­arch or parts of rese­arch pro­jects to the ext­ent per­mit­ted by the pur­po­se pur­sued. if this is done in com­pli­ance with the reco­gnized ethi­cal stan­dards of sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch. Data sub­jects should be given the oppor­tu­ni­ty to give their con­sent only for spe­ci­fic are­as of rese­arch or parts of rese­arch pro­jects to the ext­ent per­mit­ted by the pur­po­se pursued.
12.Vio­la­ti­on of the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data“a breach of secu­ri­ty that results, whe­ther acci­den­tal­ly or unlawful­ly, in the des­truc­tion, loss, altera­ti­on, or unaut­ho­ri­zed dis­clo­sure of, or access to, per­so­nal data that has been trans­mit­ted, stored, or other­wi­se pro­ce­s­sed. 13.gene­tic data“per­so­nal data rela­ting to the inhe­ri­ted or acqui­red gene­tic cha­rac­te­ri­stics of a natu­ral per­son which pro­vi­de uni­que infor­ma­ti­on about the phy­sio­lo­gy or health of that natu­ral per­son and have been obtai­ned, in par­ti­cu­lar, from the ana­ly­sis of a bio­lo­gi­cal sam­ple from that natu­ral per­son.
Reci­tals
(34) Gene­tic data should be defi­ned as per­so­nal data con­cer­ning the inhe­ri­ted or acqui­red gene­tic cha­rac­te­ri­stics of a natu­ral per­son obtai­ned from the ana­ly­sis of a bio­lo­gi­cal sam­ple of that natu­ral per­son, in par­ti­cu­lar by chro­mo­so­mal, deoxy­ri­bo­nu­cleic acid (DNA) or ribo­nu­cleic acid (RNA) ana­ly­sis or the ana­ly­sis of any other ele­ment by which equi­va­lent infor­ma­ti­on can be obtained.
14.bio­me­tric data” per­so­nal data, obtai­ned by means of spe­cial tech­ni­cal pro­ce­du­res, rela­ting to the phy­si­cal, phy­sio­lo­gi­cal or beha­vi­oral cha­rac­te­ri­stics of a natu­ral per­son which enable or con­firm the uni­que iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of that natu­ral per­son, such as facial images or dac­ty­lo­s­co­pic data; 15.Health data“per­so­nal infor­ma­ti­on that rela­tes to the phy­si­cal or men­tal health of an indi­vi­du­al, inclu­ding the pro­vi­si­on of health care ser­vices, and that reve­als infor­ma­ti­on about the individual’s health sta­tus.
Reci­tals
(35) Per­so­nal data con­cer­ning health should include any data rela­ting to the health sta­tus of a data sub­ject which reve­als infor­ma­ti­on about the past, pre­sent and future phy­si­cal or men­tal health sta­tus of the data sub­ject. This inclu­des infor­ma­ti­on about the natu­ral per­son coll­ec­ted in the cour­se of the regi­stra­ti­on for, as well as the pro­vi­si­on of, health ser­vices as defi­ned in Direc­ti­ve 2011/24/EU of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (9) to the natu­ral per­son, num­bers, sym­bols or iden­ti­fiers assi­gned to a natu­ral per­son to uni­que­ly iden­ti­fy that natu­ral per­son for health pur­po­ses, infor­ma­ti­on obtai­ned from the exami­na­ti­on or test­ing of a body part or body sub­stance, inclu­ding from gene­tic data and bio­lo­gi­cal spe­ci­mens, and infor­ma­ti­on about, for exam­p­le, dise­a­ses, disa­bi­li­ties, risks of dise­a­se, preexi­sting con­di­ti­ons, cli­ni­cal tre­at­ments, or the phy­sio­lo­gi­cal or bio­me­di­cal con­di­ti­on of the indi­vi­du­al, regard­less of the source of the data, whe­ther from a phy­si­ci­an or other health care pro­fes­sio­nal, a hos­pi­tal, a medi­cal device, or an in vitro dia­gno­stic device.
16.Head office
a) in the case of a con­trol­ler with estab­lish­ments in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te, the place of its main admi­ni­stra­ti­on in the Uni­on, unless the decis­i­ons regar­ding the pur­po­ses and means of the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data are taken in ano­ther estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler in the Uni­on and that estab­lish­ment is aut­ho­ri­zed to have tho­se decis­i­ons imple­men­ted, in which case the estab­lish­ment taking such decis­i­ons shall be con­side­red the main establishment;
b) in the case of a pro­ces­sor with estab­lish­ments in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te, the place of its head office in the Uni­on or, whe­re the pro­ces­sor does not have a head office in the Uni­on, the estab­lish­ment of the pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties in the con­text of the acti­vi­ties of an estab­lish­ment of a pro­ces­sor main­ly take place, to the ext­ent that the pro­ces­sor is sub­ject to spe­ci­fic obli­ga­ti­ons under this Regulation;
Reci­tals
(36) The main estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler in the Uni­on should be the place of its cen­tral admi­ni­stra­ti­on in the Uni­on, unless decis­i­ons on the pur­po­ses and means of the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data are taken in ano­ther estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler in the Uni­on, in which case the lat­ter should be con­side­red the main estab­lish­ment. Objec­ti­ve cri­te­ria should be used to deter­mi­ne the main estab­lish­ment of a con­trol­ler in the Uni­on, one cri­ter­ion being the effec­ti­ve and actu­al exer­cise of manage­ment acti­vi­ties by a fixed estab­lish­ment within which the poli­cy decis­i­ons deter­mi­ning the pur­po­ses and means of the pro­ce­s­sing are taken. The decisi­ve fac­tor should not be whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data is actual­ly car­ri­ed out at that loca­ti­on. The exi­stence and use of tech­ni­cal means and pro­ce­du­res for pro­ce­s­sing per­so­nal data or pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties do not in them­sel­ves estab­lish a main estab­lish­ment and are the­r­e­fo­re not a deter­mi­ning fac­tor for the exi­stence of a main estab­lish­ment. The main estab­lish­ment of the pro­ces­sor should be the place whe­re the pro­ces­sor has its main admi­ni­stra­ti­on in the Uni­on or, if it has no main admi­ni­stra­ti­on in the Uni­on, the place whe­re the main pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties take place in the Uni­on. Whe­re both the con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor are con­cer­ned, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the con­trol­ler has its main estab­lish­ment should remain the com­pe­tent lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, but the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the pro­ces­sor should be con­side­red as the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned and that super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should par­ti­ci­pa­te in the coope­ra­ti­on pro­ce­du­re pro­vi­ded for in this Regu­la­ti­on. In any event, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of the Mem­ber Sta­te or Mem­ber Sta­tes in which the pro­ces­sor has one or more estab­lish­ments should not be con­side­red as super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned if the draft decis­i­on rela­tes only to the con­trol­ler. Whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by a group of under­ta­kings, the main estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ling under­ta­king should be con­side­red as the main estab­lish­ment of the group of under­ta­kings, unless the pur­po­ses and means of the pro­ce­s­sing are deter­mi­ned by ano­ther undertaking.
17.Repre­sen­ta­ti­ve” means a natu­ral or legal per­son estab­lished in the Uni­on who has been appoin­ted in wri­ting by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in accordance with Artic­le 27 and repres­ents the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in rela­ti­on to the respec­ti­ve obli­ga­ti­ons incum­bent on them under this Regu­la­ti­on; 18.Com­pa­ny” a natu­ral and legal per­son enga­ged in an eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty, regard­less of its legal form, inclu­ding part­ner­ships or asso­cia­ti­ons regu­lar­ly enga­ged in an eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty; 19.Group of com­pa­nies” a group con­si­sting of a con­trol­ling com­pa­ny and its depen­dent com­pa­nies;
Reci­tals
(37) A group of under­ta­kings should con­sist of a con­trol­ling under­ta­king and the under­ta­kings which are depen­dent on it, the con­trol­ling under­ta­king being the under­ta­king which can exer­cise a domi­nant influence over the other under­ta­kings by vir­tue, for exam­p­le, of owner­ship, finan­cial par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on or the rules which govern it or the power to have data pro­tec­tion rules imple­men­ted. A com­pa­ny that con­trols the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in com­pa­nies affi­lia­ted to it should be con­side­red, tog­e­ther with them, as a “Group of com­pa­nies” can be considered.
20.Bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion regu­la­ti­ons“mea­su­res for the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data with which a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor estab­lished in the ter­ri­to­ry of a Mem­ber Sta­te under­ta­kes to com­ply in respect of data trans­fers or a set of data trans­fers of per­so­nal data to a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor belon­ging to the same group of under­ta­kings or to the same group of under­ta­kings enga­ged in a joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty in one or more third count­ries. 21.Super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty” an inde­pen­dent govern­men­tal enti­ty estab­lished by a Mem­ber Sta­te pur­su­ant to Artic­le 51; 22.super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned” a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned by the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data becau­se.
a) the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor is estab­lished in the ter­ri­to­ry of the Mem­ber Sta­te of that super­vi­so­ry authority,
b) that pro­ce­s­sing has or is likely to have a signi­fi­cant impact on data sub­jects resi­ding in the Mem­ber Sta­te of that super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, or
c) a com­plaint has been filed with this super­vi­so­ry authority;
23.cross-bor­der pro­ce­s­sing” eit­her
a) a pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data car­ri­ed out in the con­text of the acti­vi­ties of estab­lish­ments of a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te, whe­re the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor is estab­lished in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te, or
b) a pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data which is car­ri­ed out in the cour­se of the acti­vi­ties of a sin­gle estab­lish­ment of a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on but which has or is likely to have a signi­fi­cant impact on data sub­jects in more than one Mem­ber State;
24.aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and rea­so­ned objec­tion” an objec­tion to a draft decis­i­on with regard to whe­ther the­re is a breach of this Regu­la­ti­on or whe­ther inten­ded mea­su­res against the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor are in com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, cle­ar­ly indi­ca­ting the scope of the risks posed by the draft decis­i­on in rela­ti­on to the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of data sub­jects and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the free flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on; 25.Infor­ma­ti­on Socie­ty Ser­vice” a ser­vice as defi­ned in Artic­le 1(1)(b) of Direc­ti­ve (EU) 2015/1535 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (19); 26.inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on“an orga­nizati­on under inter­na­tio­nal law and its sub­or­di­na­te bodies or any other body estab­lished by or pur­su­ant to an agree­ment con­clu­ded bet­ween two or more count­ries.
Reci­tals
(31) Public aut­ho­ri­ties to which per­so­nal data are dis­c­lo­sed on the basis of a legal obli­ga­ti­on for the per­for­mance of their offi­ci­al tasks, such as tax and cus­toms aut­ho­ri­ties, finan­cial intel­li­gence units, inde­pen­dent admi­ni­stra­ti­ve aut­ho­ri­ties or finan­cial mar­ket aut­ho­ri­ties respon­si­ble for the regu­la­ti­on and super­vi­si­on of secu­ri­ties mar­kets, should not be con­side­red as reci­pi­en­ts when they recei­ve per­so­nal data neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance, in accordance with Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, of an indi­vi­du­al inve­sti­ga­ti­on task in the public inte­rest. Requests for dis­clo­sure emana­ting from public aut­ho­ri­ties should always be made in wri­ting, should be rea­so­ned and occa­sio­nal in natu­re, and should not con­cern com­ple­te file systems or lead to the inter­lin­king of file systems. The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by the said aut­ho­ri­ties should com­ply with the data pro­tec­tion rules appli­ca­ble to the pur­po­ses of the processing.

Chap­ter II Principles

Artic­le 5 Prin­ci­ples for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data

(1) Per­so­nal data must be
a) pro­ce­s­sed lawful­ly, fair­ly and in a man­ner com­pre­hen­si­ble to the data sub­ject (“Lawful­ness, fair pro­ce­s­sing, trans­pa­ren­cy and infor­ma­ti­on„);
b) coll­ec­ted for spe­ci­fi­ed, expli­cit and legi­ti­ma­te pur­po­ses and shall not be fur­ther pro­ce­s­sed in a way incom­pa­ti­ble with tho­se pur­po­ses; fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses shall not be con­side­red incom­pa­ti­ble with the ori­gi­nal pur­po­ses pur­su­ant to Artic­le 89(1) (“Ear­mar­king„);
c) ade­qua­te and rele­vant to the pur­po­se and limi­t­ed to what is neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing (data minimization);
d) accu­ra­te and, whe­re neces­sa­ry, kept up to date; every rea­sonable step must be taken to ensu­re that per­so­nal data which are inac­cu­ra­te having regard to the pur­po­ses of their pro­ce­s­sing are era­sed or rec­ti­fi­ed wit­hout delay (“Cor­rect­ness„);
e) kept in a form which per­mits iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of data sub­jects for no lon­ger than is neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses for which the data are pro­ce­s­sed; per­so­nal data may be kept for lon­ger peri­ods inso­far as the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed sole­ly for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest or for sci­en­ti­fic and histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses as refer­red to in Artic­le 89(1), sub­ject to the imple­men­ta­ti­on of appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res requi­red by this Regu­la­ti­on to safe­guard the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject (“Memo­ry limi­ta­ti­on„);
f) pro­ce­s­sed in a man­ner that ensu­res appro­pria­te secu­ri­ty of per­so­nal data, inclu­ding pro­tec­tion against unaut­ho­ri­zed or unlawful pro­ce­s­sing and against acci­den­tal loss, des­truc­tion or dama­ge by appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res (“Inte­gri­ty and con­fi­den­tia­li­ty„);
(2) The respon­si­ble par­ty shall be respon­si­ble for com­pli­ance with para­graph (1) and shall be able to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance the­re­wi­th (“Accoun­ta­bi­li­ty„).
Reci­tals
39 Any pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data should be lawful and fair. The­re should be trans­pa­ren­cy for natu­ral per­sons as to the fact that per­so­nal data rela­ting to them are coll­ec­ted, used, acce­s­sed or other­wi­se pro­ce­s­sed, and as to the ext­ent to which the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed and will be pro­ce­s­sed in the future. The prin­ci­ple of trans­pa­ren­cy requi­res that all infor­ma­ti­on and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons rela­ting to the pro­ce­s­sing of such per­so­nal data be easi­ly acce­s­si­ble and under­stan­da­ble and writ­ten in clear and plain lan­guage. This prin­ci­ple con­cerns, in par­ti­cu­lar, infor­ma­ti­on on the iden­ti­ty of the con­trol­ler and the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing and other infor­ma­ti­on ensu­ring fair and trans­pa­rent pro­ce­s­sing with regard to the natu­ral per­sons con­cer­ned, as well as their right to obtain con­fir­ma­ti­on and infor­ma­ti­on about which per­so­nal data con­cer­ning them are being pro­ce­s­sed. Natu­ral per­sons should be infor­med about the risks, rules, safe­guards and rights rela­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and how to exer­cise their rights in this regard. In par­ti­cu­lar, the spe­ci­fic pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed should be clear, lawful and estab­lished at the time the per­so­nal data are coll­ec­ted. The per­so­nal data should be ade­qua­te, rele­vant and limi­t­ed to what is neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses for which they are pro­ce­s­sed. In par­ti­cu­lar, this requi­res that the reten­ti­on peri­od for per­so­nal data be limi­t­ed to the mini­mum strict­ly neces­sa­ry. Per­so­nal data should only be allo­wed to be pro­ce­s­sed if the pur­po­se of the pro­ce­s­sing can­not rea­son­ab­ly be achie­ved by other means. In order to ensu­re that per­so­nal data are not kept lon­ger than neces­sa­ry, the con­trol­ler should pro­vi­de time limits for their era­su­re or peri­odic review. All rea­sonable steps should be taken to ensu­re that inac­cu­ra­te per­so­nal data are era­sed or rec­ti­fi­ed. Per­so­nal data should be pro­ce­s­sed in such a way that their secu­ri­ty and con­fi­den­tia­li­ty are ade­qua­te­ly ensu­red, inclu­ding that unaut­ho­ri­zed per­sons can­not access the data or use the data or the equip­ment with which they are processed. 

Artic­le 6 Lawful­ness of processing

(1) Pro­ce­s­sing is lawful only if at least one of the fol­lo­wing con­di­ti­ons is met:
a) The data sub­ject has given his/her con­sent to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him/her for one or more spe­ci­fic purposes;
b) the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a con­tract to which the data sub­ject is par­ty or for the imple­men­ta­ti­on of pre-con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res taken at the data subject’s request;
c) pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on to which the con­trol­ler is subject;
d) the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry in order to pro­tect the vital inte­rests of the data sub­ject or ano­ther natu­ral person;
e) pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the controller;
f) pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses of the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the con­trol­ler or of a third par­ty, except whe­re such inte­rests are over­ridden by the inte­rests or fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject which requi­re pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the data sub­ject is a child.
Point (f) of the first sub­pa­ra­graph shall not app­ly to pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out by public aut­ho­ri­ties in the per­for­mance of their tasks.
Mem­ber Sta­tes may main­tain or intro­du­ce more spe­ci­fic pro­vi­si­ons to adapt the appli­ca­ti­on of the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on in rela­ti­on to pro­ce­s­sing to com­ply with points (c) and (e) of para­graph 1 by spe­ci­fy­ing more pre­cis­e­ly spe­ci­fic requi­re­ments for pro­ce­s­sing as well as other mea­su­res to ensu­re lawful and fair pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding for other spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing situa­tions refer­red to in Chap­ter IX.
The legal basis for the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons refer­red to in points (c) and (e) of para­graph 1 shall be estab­lished by
a) Uni­on law or
b) the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes to which the con­trol­ler is subject.
The pur­po­se of the pro­ce­s­sing must be spe­ci­fi­ed in that legal basis or, as regards the pro­ce­s­sing refer­red to in point (e) of para­graph 1, must be neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler. That legal basis may con­tain spe­ci­fic pro­vi­si­ons adap­ting the appli­ca­ti­on of the rules of this Regu­la­ti­on, inclu­ding pro­vi­si­ons on the gene­ral con­di­ti­ons gover­ning the lawful­ness of the pro­ce­s­sing by the con­trol­ler, the types of data pro­ce­s­sed, the indi­vi­du­als con­cer­ned, the enti­ties to which and the pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data may be dis­c­lo­sed, the pur­po­se limi­ta­ti­on, the sto­rage peri­od and the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons and pro­ce­du­res that may be applied, inclu­ding mea­su­res to ensu­re lawful and fair pro­ce­s­sing, such as tho­se for other spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing situa­tions in accordance with Chap­ter IX. Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law must pur­sue an objec­ti­ve in the public inte­rest and be pro­por­tio­na­te to the legi­ti­ma­te pur­po­se pur­sued.
4. Whe­re pro­ce­s­sing for a pur­po­se other than that for which the per­so­nal data were coll­ec­ted is not based on the data subject’s con­sent or on a Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law which con­sti­tu­tes a neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te mea­su­re in a demo­cra­tic socie­ty to safe­guard the objec­ti­ves refer­red to in Artic­le 23(1), the con­trol­ler shall – in order to deter­mi­ne whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing for ano­ther pur­po­se is com­pa­ti­ble with that for which the per­so­nal data were ori­gi­nal­ly coll­ec­ted – take into account, inter alia
a) any link bet­ween the pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data were coll­ec­ted and the pur­po­ses of the inten­ded fur­ther processing,
b) the con­text in which the per­so­nal data were coll­ec­ted, in par­ti­cu­lar with regard to the rela­ti­on­ship bet­ween the data sub­jects and the controller,
c) the natu­re of the per­so­nal data, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­ther spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed pur­su­ant to Artic­le 9 or whe­ther per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ses are pro­ce­s­sed pur­su­ant to Artic­le 10,
d) the pos­si­ble con­se­quen­ces of the inten­ded fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing for the data subjects,
e) the exi­stence of appro­pria­te safe­guards, which may include encryp­ti­on or pseudonymization.
Reci­tals
(40) In order for pro­ce­s­sing to be lawful, per­so­nal data must be pro­ce­s­sed with the con­sent of the data sub­ject or on any other admis­si­ble legal basis deri­ving from this Regu­la­ti­on or, when­ever refer­red to in this Regu­la­ti­on, from other Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, such as, inter alia, on the basis that it is neces­sa­ry for com­pli­ance with the legal obli­ga­ti­on to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject or for the per­for­mance of a con­tract to which the data sub­ject is par­ty, or for the per­for­mance of pre-con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res taken at the data subject’s request.
(41) Whe­re refe­rence is made in this Regu­la­ti­on to a legal basis or a legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­re, this does not neces­s­a­ri­ly requi­re a legis­la­ti­ve act adopted by a par­lia­ment, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to requi­re­ments under the con­sti­tu­tio­nal order of the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned. Howe­ver, the rele­vant legal basis or legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­re should be clear and pre­cise and its appli­ca­ti­on should be trans­pa­rent to tho­se sub­ject to the law, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justi­ce of the Euro­pean Uni­on (her­ein­af­ter “Court of Justi­ce”) and the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights should be foreseeable.
(44) The pro­ce­s­sing of data should be con­side­red lawful if it is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance or the envi­sa­ged con­clu­si­on of a contract.
(45) Whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by the con­trol­ler on the basis of a legal obli­ga­ti­on to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty, the­re must be a basis for it in Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law. This Regu­la­ti­on does not requi­re a spe­ci­fic law for each indi­vi­du­al pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on. A law may be suf­fi­ci­ent as a basis for seve­ral pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out on the basis of a legal obli­ga­ti­on incum­bent on the con­trol­ler or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty. Simi­lar­ly, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law should regu­la­te the pur­po­ses for which the data may be pro­ce­s­sed. Fur­ther­mo­re, such law could spe­ci­fy the gene­ral con­di­ti­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on gover­ning the lawful­ness of the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and could spe­ci­fy how the con­trol­ler is to be deter­mi­ned, what type of per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed, which indi­vi­du­als are con­cer­ned, to which enti­ties the per­so­nal data may be dis­c­lo­sed, for what pur­po­ses and for how long they may be stored, and what other mea­su­res are taken to ensu­re that the pro­ce­s­sing is lawful and fair. Simi­lar­ly, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law should spe­ci­fy whe­ther the con­trol­ler per­forming a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty should be a public aut­ho­ri­ty or ano­ther natu­ral or legal per­son gover­ned by public law or, whe­re justi­fi­ed by the public inte­rest, inclu­ding health pur­po­ses, such as public health or social secu­ri­ty or the admi­ni­stra­ti­on of heal­th­ca­re bene­fits, a natu­ral or legal per­son gover­ned by pri­va­te law, such as a pro­fes­sio­nal association.
(46) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data should also be con­side­red lawful if it is neces­sa­ry in order to pro­tect a vital inte­rest of the data sub­ject or of ano­ther natu­ral per­son. Per­so­nal data should in prin­ci­ple only be pro­ce­s­sed on the basis of a vital inte­rest of ano­ther natu­ral per­son if the pro­ce­s­sing cle­ar­ly can­not be based on any other legal basis. Some types of pro­ce­s­sing may ser­ve both important public inte­rest rea­sons and vital inte­rests of the data sub­ject; for exam­p­le, pro­ce­s­sing may be neces­sa­ry for huma­ni­ta­ri­an pur­po­ses, inclu­ding moni­to­ring epi­de­mics and their spread, or in huma­ni­ta­ri­an emer­gen­ci­es, in par­ti­cu­lar natu­ral or man-made disasters.
(47) The lawful­ness of the pro­ce­s­sing may be justi­fi­ed by the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of a con­trol­ler, inclu­ding a con­trol­ler to whom the per­so­nal data may be dis­c­lo­sed, or of a third par­ty, pro­vi­ded that the inte­rests or the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject are not over­ridden, taking into account the rea­sonable expec­ta­ti­ons of the data sub­ject based on his or her rela­ti­on­ship with the con­trol­ler. For exam­p­le, a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest could exist if the­re is an aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and appro­pria­te rela­ti­on­ship bet­ween the data sub­ject and the con­trol­ler, e.g., if the data sub­ject is a cus­to­mer of the con­trol­ler or is in its ser­vice. In any case, the exi­stence of a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest would have to be weig­hed par­ti­cu­lar­ly careful­ly, inclu­ding whe­ther a data sub­ject could rea­son­ab­ly fore­see, at the time of coll­ec­tion of the per­so­nal data and in light of the cir­cum­stances in which it takes place, that pro­ce­s­sing might take place for that pur­po­se. In par­ti­cu­lar, whe­re per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed in situa­tions whe­re a data sub­ject can­not rea­son­ab­ly expect fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing, the inte­rests and fun­da­men­tal rights of the data sub­ject could over­ri­de the inte­rest of the con­trol­ler. Sin­ce it is for the legis­la­tor to pro­vi­de by law the legal basis for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by public aut­ho­ri­ties, this legal basis should not app­ly to pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out by public aut­ho­ri­ties in the per­for­mance of their tasks. The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data to the ext­ent strict­ly neces­sa­ry for the pre­ven­ti­on of fraud also con­sti­tu­tes a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest of the rele­vant controller.
The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for the pur­po­ses of direct mar­ke­ting may be con­side­red as pro­ce­s­sing ser­ving a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest.
(48) Con­trol­lers that are part of a group of under­ta­kings or a group of enti­ties that are assi­gned to a cen­tral body may have a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest in trans­fer­ring per­so­nal data within the group of under­ta­kings for inter­nal manage­ment pur­po­ses, inclu­ding the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of cus­to­mers and employees. The basic prin­ci­ples for the trans­fer of per­so­nal data within groups of com­pa­nies to a com­pa­ny in a third coun­try remain unaffected.
(49) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by public aut­ho­ri­ties, Com­pu­ter Emer­gen­cy Respon­se Teams (CERTs), Com­pu­ter Secu­ri­ty Inci­dent Respon­se Teams (CSIRTs), pro­vi­ders of elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons net­works and ser­vices, and pro­vi­ders of secu­ri­ty tech­no­lo­gies and ser­vices con­sti­tu­tes a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest of the con­trol­ler to the ext­ent strict­ly neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te for ensu­ring net­work and infor­ma­ti­on secu­ri­ty, i.e. to the ext­ent that it ensu­res the abili­ty of a net­work or infor­ma­ti­on system to with­stand, with a spe­ci­fi­ed degree of relia­bi­li­ty, dis­rup­ti­ons or unlawful or mali­cious inter­fe­rence affec­ting the avai­la­bi­li­ty, authen­ti­ci­ty, com­ple­ten­ess or con­fi­den­tia­li­ty of the net­work or infor­ma­ti­on system.i.e., to the ext­ent that it ensu­res the abili­ty of a net­work or infor­ma­ti­on system to with­stand, with a spe­ci­fi­ed degree of relia­bi­li­ty, inter­fe­rence or unlawful or wan­ton intru­si­on affec­ting the avai­la­bi­li­ty, authen­ti­ci­ty, com­ple­ten­ess and con­fi­den­tia­li­ty of stored or trans­mit­ted per­so­nal data, as well as the secu­ri­ty of rela­ted ser­vices offe­red or acce­s­si­ble through tho­se net­works or infor­ma­ti­on systems. Such a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest could be, for exam­p­le, to pre­vent unaut­ho­ri­zed access to elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons net­works and the dis­se­mi­na­ti­on of mali­cious pro­gram code, as well as attacks in the form of tar­ge­ted over­loa­ding of ser­vers (“Deni­al of ser­vice” attacks) and to defend against dama­ge to com­pu­ter and elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons systems.
(50) Pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for pur­po­ses other than tho­se for which the per­so­nal data were ori­gi­nal­ly coll­ec­ted should only be allo­wed if the pro­ce­s­sing is com­pa­ti­ble with the pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data were ori­gi­nal­ly coll­ec­ted. In this case, no sepa­ra­te legal basis is requi­red other than the one for the coll­ec­tion of the per­so­nal data. Whe­re pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may deter­mi­ne and spe­ci­fy the tasks and pur­po­ses for which fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing is dee­med com­pa­ti­ble and lawful. Fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses should be con­side­red com­pa­ti­ble and lawful pro­ce­s­sing. The legal basis for pro­ce­s­sing per­so­nal data pro­vi­ded for in Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may also ser­ve as a legal basis for fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing. In order to deter­mi­ne whe­ther a pur­po­se of fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing is com­pa­ti­ble with the pur­po­se for which the per­so­nal data were ori­gi­nal­ly coll­ec­ted, the con­trol­ler, after com­ply­ing with all requi­re­ments for the lawful­ness of the ori­gi­nal pro­ce­s­sing, should con­sider, inter alia, whe­ther the­re is a link bet­ween the pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data were coll­ec­ted and the pur­po­ses of the inten­ded fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing, the con­text in which the data were coll­ec­ted, in par­ti­cu­lar the rea­sonable expec­ta­ti­ons of the data sub­ject, based on his or her rela­ti­on­ship with the con­trol­ler, as to the fur­ther use of such data, the natu­re of the per­so­nal data invol­ved, the con­se­quen­ces of the inten­ded fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing for the data sub­jects, and whe­ther appro­pria­te safe­guards are in place for both the ori­gi­nal and the inten­ded fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing operation.
Whe­re the data sub­ject has given con­sent or the pro­ce­s­sing is based on Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, which is a neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te mea­su­re in a demo­cra­tic socie­ty to pro­tect, in par­ti­cu­lar, important gene­ral public inte­rest objec­ti­ves, the con­trol­ler should be allo­wed to fur­ther pro­cess the per­so­nal data regard­less of the com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty of the pur­po­ses. In any case, it should be ensu­red that the prin­ci­ples laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on are applied and, in par­ti­cu­lar, that the data sub­ject is infor­med of tho­se other pur­po­ses and of his or her rights, inclu­ding the right to object. The indi­ca­ti­on by the con­trol­ler of pos­si­ble cri­mi­nal offen­ces or thre­ats to public secu­ri­ty and the trans­fer to a com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ty of the rele­vant per­so­nal data in indi­vi­du­al cases or in seve­ral cases rela­ted to the same cri­mi­nal offence or the same thre­at to public secu­ri­ty should be con­side­red as a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest of the con­trol­ler. Howe­ver, such trans­fer of per­so­nal data in the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest of the con­trol­ler or fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing the­reof should be unlawful if the pro­ce­s­sing is incom­pa­ti­ble with a legal, pro­fes­sio­nal or other bin­ding obli­ga­ti­on of secrecy. 

Artic­le 7 Con­di­ti­ons for consent

(1) If the pro­ce­s­sing is based on con­sent, the con­trol­ler must be able to pro­ve that the data sub­ject has con­sen­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing of his/her per­so­nal data.
(2) If the data subject’s con­sent is given by means of a writ­ten state­ment which also con­cerns other mat­ters, the request for con­sent shall be made in an under­stan­da­ble and easi­ly acce­s­si­ble form in clear and simp­le lan­guage in such a way that it can be cle­ar­ly distin­gu­is­hed from the other mat­ters. Por­ti­ons of the state­ment shall not be bin­ding if they con­sti­tu­te a vio­la­ti­on of this Ordinance.
(3) The data sub­ject has the right to revo­ke his/her con­sent at any time. The revo­ca­ti­on of con­sent shall not affect the lawful­ness of the pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out on the basis of the con­sent until the revo­ca­ti­on. The data sub­ject shall be infor­med of this befo­re giving con­sent. The revo­ca­ti­on of con­sent must be as simp­le as giving consent.
(4) In asses­sing whe­ther con­sent has been free­ly given, it is neces­sa­ry to take into account, to the grea­test ext­ent pos­si­ble, whe­ther, inter alia, the per­for­mance of a con­tract, inclu­ding the pro­vi­si­on of a ser­vice, is depen­dent on con­sent to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data that are not neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of the contract.
Reci­tals
(42) Whe­re pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out with the con­sent of the data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler should be able to demon­stra­te that the data sub­ject has given his or her con­sent to the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on. In par­ti­cu­lar, whe­re a writ­ten state­ment is given in ano­ther mat­ter, safe­guards should ensu­re that the data sub­ject knows that he or she is giving con­sent and to what ext­ent. In accordance with Coun­cil Direc­ti­ve 93/13/EEC (10), a con­sent form pre-for­mu­la­ted by the con­trol­ler should be pro­vi­ded in an intel­li­gi­ble and easi­ly acce­s­si­ble form in plain and simp­le lan­guage and should not con­tain unfair terms. In order to be able to give infor­med con­sent, the data sub­ject should at least know who the con­trol­ler is and for what pur­po­ses his or her per­so­nal data are to be pro­ce­s­sed. She should only be con­side­red to have given her con­sent vol­un­t­a­ri­ly if she has a genui­ne or free choice and is thus able to refu­se or with­draw con­sent wit­hout suf­fe­ring any disadvantages.
(43) In order to ensu­re that con­sent is free­ly given, it should not pro­vi­de a valid legal basis in spe­ci­fic cases whe­re the­re is a clear imba­lan­ce bet­ween the data sub­ject and the con­trol­ler, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the con­trol­ler is a public aut­ho­ri­ty and it is the­r­e­fo­re unli­kely, in view of all the cir­cum­stances in the spe­ci­fic case, that con­sent was free­ly given. Con­sent shall not be dee­med to have been given vol­un­t­a­ri­ly if con­sent can­not be given sepa­ra­te­ly for dif­fe­rent pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons of per­so­nal data, alt­hough this is appro­pria­te in the spe­ci­fic case, or if the per­for­mance of a con­tract, inclu­ding the pro­vi­si­on of a ser­vice, is depen­dent on con­sent, alt­hough such con­sent is not neces­sa­ry for performance.

Artic­le 8 Con­di­ti­ons for the con­sent of a child in rela­ti­on to infor­ma­ti­on socie­ty services

(1) Whe­re Artic­le 6(1)(a) applies in the case of an offer of infor­ma­ti­on socie­ty ser­vices made direct­ly to a child, the pro­ce­s­sing of the child’s per­so­nal data shall be lawful if the child has rea­ched the age of six­teen. If the child has not rea­ched the age of six­teen, such pro­ce­s­sing shall be lawful only if and to the ext­ent that such con­sent is given by or with the con­sent of the hol­der of paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty over the child. Mem­ber Sta­tes may, by law, pro­vi­de for a lower age limit for the­se pur­po­ses, but it shall not be lower than the age of thir­teen years.
(2) The Con­trol­ler shall make rea­sonable efforts, taking into account available tech­no­lo­gy, to ascer­tain in such cases that con­sent has been given by or with the con­sent of the hol­der of paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty for the child.
(Para­graph 1 shall be wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the gene­ral con­tract law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, such as the rules on the vali­di­ty, for­ma­ti­on or legal con­se­quen­ces of a con­tract in rela­ti­on to a child.
Reci­tals
(38) Child­ren deser­ve spe­cial pro­tec­tion with regard to their per­so­nal data, as child­ren may be less awa­re of the risks, con­se­quen­ces and safe­guards invol­ved and of their rights when per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed. Such spe­cial pro­tec­tion should in par­ti­cu­lar con­cern the use of children’s per­so­nal data for adver­ti­sing pur­po­ses or for per­so­nal or user pro­fil­ing and the coll­ec­tion of children’s per­so­nal data when using ser­vices offe­red direct­ly to child­ren. The con­sent of the hol­der of paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty should not be requi­red in the con­text of pre­ven­ti­on or coun­seling ser­vices offe­red direct­ly to a child.

Artic­le 9 Pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data

(1) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data reve­al­ing racial or eth­nic ori­gin, poli­ti­cal opi­ni­ons, reli­gious or phi­lo­so­phi­cal beliefs, or trade uni­on mem­ber­ship, as well as the pro­ce­s­sing of gene­tic data, bio­me­tric data uni­que­ly iden­ti­fy­ing a natu­ral per­son, health data or data con­cer­ning a natu­ral person’s sex life or sexu­al ori­en­ta­ti­on shall be prohibited.
(2) Para­graph 1 shall not app­ly in the fol­lo­wing cases:
a) The data sub­ject has given his or her expli­cit con­sent to the pro­ce­s­sing of the per­so­nal data refer­red to abo­ve for one or more spe­ci­fi­ed pur­po­ses, unless, under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, the pro­hi­bi­ti­on in para­graph 1 can­not be lifted by the data subject’s consent,
b) the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry to enable the con­trol­ler or the data sub­ject to exer­cise his or her rights and com­ply with his or her obli­ga­ti­ons under employment law and social secu­ri­ty and social pro­tec­tion law, to the ext­ent per­mit­ted by Uni­on law or Mem­ber Sta­te law or by a coll­ec­ti­ve agree­ment under Mem­ber Sta­te law which pro­vi­des appro­pria­te safe­guards for the fun­da­men­tal rights and inte­rests of the data subject,
c) the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry to pro­tect the vital inte­rests of the data sub­ject or ano­ther natu­ral per­son and the data sub­ject is unable to give con­sent for phy­si­cal or legal reasons,
d) the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out on the basis of appro­pria­te safe­guards by a poli­ti­cal, phi­lo­so­phi­cal, reli­gious or trade uni­on foun­da­ti­on, asso­cia­ti­on or other non-pro­fit orga­nizati­on in the cour­se of its legi­ti­ma­te acti­vi­ties and pro­vi­ded that the pro­ce­s­sing rela­tes exclu­si­ve­ly to the mem­bers or for­mer mem­bers of the orga­nizati­on or to per­sons who have regu­lar cont­acts with it in con­nec­tion with its pur­po­se of acti­vi­ty and that the per­so­nal data are not dis­c­lo­sed to out­side par­ties wit­hout the con­sent of the data subjects,
e) the pro­ce­s­sing rela­tes to per­so­nal data which the data sub­ject has mani­fest­ly made public,
f) pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the estab­lish­ment, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims or in case of actions of the courts in the cour­se of their judi­cial activities,
g) pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for rea­sons of sub­stan­ti­al public inte­rest based on Uni­on law or the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te which is pro­por­tio­na­te to the aim pur­sued, respects the essence of the right to data pro­tec­tion and pro­vi­des for ade­qua­te and spe­ci­fic mea­su­res to safe­guard the fun­da­men­tal rights and inte­rests of the data subject,
h) the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses of pre­ven­ti­ve health care or occu­pa­tio­nal medi­ci­ne, the assess­ment of the employee’s fit­ness for work, medi­cal dia­gno­sis, health or social care or tre­at­ment, or the manage­ment of health or social care systems and ser­vices on the basis of Uni­on law or the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te or on the basis of a con­tract with a health pro­fes­sio­nal and sub­ject to the con­di­ti­ons and safe­guards refer­red to in para­graph 3,
i) the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for rea­sons of public inte­rest in the field of public health, such as pro­tec­tion against serious cross-bor­der thre­ats to health or to ensu­re high stan­dards of qua­li­ty and safe­ty in heal­th­ca­re and medi­cinal pro­ducts and medi­cal devices, on the basis of Uni­on law or the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te which lays down appro­pria­te and spe­ci­fic mea­su­res to safe­guard the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject, in par­ti­cu­lar pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy, or
j) pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses as refer­red to in Artic­le 89(1), on the basis of Uni­on law or the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te which is pro­por­tio­na­te to the aim pur­sued, respects the essence of the right to data pro­tec­tion and pro­vi­des for ade­qua­te and spe­ci­fic mea­su­res to safe­guard the fun­da­men­tal rights and inte­rests of the data subject.
The per­so­nal data refer­red to in para­graph 1 may be pro­ce­s­sed for the pur­po­ses refer­red to in point (h) of para­graph 2 whe­re tho­se data are pro­ce­s­sed by or under the respon­si­bi­li­ty of spe­cia­li­sed staff and tho­se spe­cia­li­sed staff are sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy under Uni­on law or the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te or the rules of natio­nal com­pe­tent bodies, or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by ano­ther per­son who is also sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy under Uni­on law or the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te or the rules of natio­nal com­pe­tent bodies.
(4. Mem­ber Sta­tes may intro­du­ce or main­tain addi­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons, inclu­ding rest­ric­tions, as far as the pro­ce­s­sing of gene­tic, bio­me­tric or health data is concerned.
Reci­tals
(51) Per­so­nal data which are, by their natu­re, par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve with regard to fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms deser­ve spe­ci­fic pro­tec­tion, sin­ce signi­fi­cant risks to fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms may ari­se in the con­text of their pro­ce­s­sing. Such per­so­nal data should include per­so­nal data reve­al­ing racial or eth­nic ori­gin, with the use of the term “racial ori­gin” in this Regu­la­ti­on does not mean that the Uni­on endor­ses theo­ries which attempt to pro­ve the exi­stence of dif­fe­rent human races. The pro­ce­s­sing of pho­to­graphs should not in prin­ci­ple be con­side­red as the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data, sin­ce pho­to­graphs are only cover­ed by the defi­ni­ti­on of “bio­me­tric data” if they are pro­ce­s­sed by spe­ci­fic tech­ni­cal means enab­ling the uni­que iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or authen­ti­ca­ti­on of a natu­ral per­son. Such per­so­nal data should not be pro­ce­s­sed unless the pro­ce­s­sing is allo­wed in the spe­ci­fic cases set out in this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account that spe­ci­fic data pro­tec­tion pro­vi­si­ons may be laid down in the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes in order to adapt the appli­ca­ti­on of the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on to allow com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on or the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler. In addi­ti­on to the spe­ci­fic requi­re­ments for such pro­ce­s­sing, the gene­ral prin­ci­ples and other pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on should app­ly, in par­ti­cu­lar as regards the con­di­ti­ons for lawful pro­ce­s­sing. Dero­ga­ti­ons from the gene­ral pro­hi­bi­ti­on on pro­ce­s­sing tho­se spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data should be expli­ci­t­ly pro­vi­ded for, inter alia, whe­re the data sub­ject has given his or her expli­cit con­sent or whe­re the­re are spe­ci­fic needs, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out in the cour­se of legi­ti­ma­te acti­vi­ties of cer­tain asso­cia­ti­ons or foun­da­ti­ons pro­mo­ting the exer­cise of fun­da­men­tal freedoms.
(52) Dero­ga­ti­ons from the pro­hi­bi­ti­on on pro­ce­s­sing spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data should also be allo­wed whe­re pro­vi­ded for by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law and, sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards for the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data and other fun­da­men­tal rights, whe­re justi­fi­ed by the public inte­rest, in par­ti­cu­lar for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in the field of employment law and social secu­ri­ty law, inclu­ding pen­si­ons, and for the pur­po­ses of ensu­ring and moni­to­ring health and health war­nings, pre­ven­ti­on or con­trol of con­ta­gious dise­a­ses and other serious health thre­ats. Such an excep­ti­on may be made for health pur­po­ses, such as ensu­ring public health and the admi­ni­stra­ti­on of health care bene­fits, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re it is inten­ded to ensu­re the qua­li­ty and effi­ci­en­cy of the pro­ce­du­res for bil­ling bene­fits in social health insu­rance sche­mes, or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing ser­ves archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses. The pro­ce­s­sing of such per­so­nal data should also be excep­tio­nal­ly allo­wed if it is neces­sa­ry to assert, exer­cise or defend legal claims, whe­ther in judi­cial pro­ce­e­dings or in admi­ni­stra­ti­ve or ext­ra­ju­di­cial proceedings.
(53) Spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data which merit a hig­her level of pro­tec­tion should only be pro­ce­s­sed for health-rela­ted pur­po­ses if neces­sa­ry for the achie­ve­ment of tho­se pur­po­ses in the inte­rest of indi­vi­du­al natu­ral per­sons and socie­ty as a who­le, in par­ti­cu­lar in the con­text of the manage­ment of health or social care ser­vices and systems, inclu­ding the pro­ce­s­sing of such data by the admi­ni­stra­ti­on and cen­tral natio­nal health aut­ho­ri­ties for the pur­po­se of qua­li­ty con­trol, admi­ni­stra­ti­ve infor­ma­ti­on and gene­ral natio­nal and local moni­to­ring of the health or social care system and for the pur­po­se of ensu­ring con­ti­nui­ty of health and social care and cross-bor­der heal­th­ca­re or health assu­rance and moni­to­ring and health alerts, or for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses based on Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te legis­la­ti­on which must ser­ve a public inte­rest objec­ti­ve, and for stu­dies car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest in the field of public health. This Regu­la­ti­on should the­r­e­fo­re har­mo­ni­se con­di­ti­ons for the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning health with regard to cer­tain requi­re­ments, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing of such data for health-rela­ted pur­po­ses is car­ri­ed out by per­sons sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy pur­su­ant to a legal obli­ga­ti­on. Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law should pro­vi­de for spe­ci­fic and pro­por­tio­na­te mea­su­res to pro­tect the fun­da­men­tal rights and per­so­nal data of natu­ral per­sons. Mem­ber Sta­tes should be allo­wed to main­tain or intro­du­ce fur­ther con­di­ti­ons, inclu­ding rest­ric­tions, in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing of gene­tic data, bio­me­tric data or health data. Howe­ver, this should not affect the free flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on if the con­di­ti­ons in que­sti­on app­ly to the cross-bor­der pro­ce­s­sing of such data.
(54) For rea­sons of public inte­rest in are­as of public health, it may be neces­sa­ry to pro­cess spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data even wit­hout the con­sent of the data sub­ject. Such pro­ce­s­sing should be sub­ject to appro­pria­te and spe­ci­fic mea­su­res to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons. In this con­text, the term “public health” shall be inter­pre­ted within the mea­ning of Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 1338/2008 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (11) and shall include all ele­ments rela­ted to health such as health sta­tus, inclu­ding mor­bi­di­ty and disa­bi­li­ty, the deter­mi­nants affec­ting that health sta­tus, the need for health care, the resour­ces allo­ca­ted to health care, the pro­vi­si­on of and gene­ral access to health care ser­vices and the cor­re­spon­ding expen­dit­u­re and finan­cing, and final­ly the cau­ses of mor­ta­li­ty. Such pro­ce­s­sing of health data for rea­sons of public inte­rest shall not result in third par­ties, inclu­ding employers or insu­rance and finan­cial com­pa­nies, pro­ce­s­sing such per­so­nal data for other purposes.
(55) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by sta­te agen­ci­es for the con­sti­tu­tio­nal­ly or inter­na­tio­nal­ly enshri­ned pur­po­ses of sta­te-reco­gnized reli­gious com­mu­ni­ties is also car­ri­ed out for rea­sons of public interest.
(56) Whe­re, in a Mem­ber Sta­te, the func­tio­ning of the demo­cra­tic system requi­res that poli­ti­cal par­ties coll­ect per­so­nal data rela­ting to the poli­ti­cal opi­ni­ons of indi­vi­du­als in the con­text of elec­tions, the pro­ce­s­sing of such data may be aut­ho­ri­sed for rea­sons of public inte­rest, pro­vi­ded that appro­pria­te safe­guards are established.

Artic­le 10 Pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offences

The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces or rela­ted secu­ri­ty mea­su­res based on Artic­le 6(1) may only be car­ri­ed out under the super­vi­si­on of public aut­ho­ri­ties or whe­re per­mit­ted by Uni­on law or Mem­ber Sta­te law pro­vi­ding appro­pria­te safe­guards for the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects. A com­pre­hen­si­ve regi­ster of cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions may be kept only under admi­ni­stra­ti­ve supervision. 

Artic­le 11 Pro­ce­s­sing for which iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of the data sub­ject is not necessary

(1) If the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of the data sub­ject by the con­trol­ler is not or is no lon­ger neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses for which a con­trol­ler pro­ce­s­ses per­so­nal data, the con­trol­ler shall not be requi­red to retain, obtain or pro­cess addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on to iden­ti­fy the data sub­ject for the sole pur­po­se of com­ply­ing with this Regulation.
(In cases refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le, if the con­trol­ler can demon­stra­te that he is unable to iden­ti­fy the data sub­ject, he shall inform the data sub­ject the­reof, whe­re pos­si­ble. In such cases, Artic­les 15 to 20 shall not app­ly unless the data sub­ject pro­vi­des addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on enab­ling him/her to be iden­ti­fi­ed in order to exer­cise his/her rights set forth in tho­se Articles.
Reci­tals
(57) Whe­re the con­trol­ler can­not iden­ti­fy a natu­ral per­son from the per­so­nal data it pro­ce­s­ses, it should not be obli­ged to obtain addi­tio­nal data in order to iden­ti­fy the data sub­ject for the sole pur­po­se of com­ply­ing with a pro­vi­si­on of this Regu­la­ti­on. Howe­ver, he should not refu­se to recei­ve addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded by the data sub­ject in order to exer­cise his rights. The iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on should include the digi­tal iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of a data sub­ject – for exam­p­le, through authen­ti­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res using, for exam­p­le, the same cre­den­ti­als as the data sub­ject uses to log in to the online ser­vice pro­vi­ded by the controller.
(64) The con­trol­ler should use all rea­sonable means to veri­fy the iden­ti­ty of a data sub­ject see­king infor­ma­ti­on, in par­ti­cu­lar in the con­text of online ser­vices and in the case of online iden­ti­fiers. A con­trol­ler should not store per­so­nal data for the sole pur­po­se of respon­ding to pos­si­ble requests for information.

Chap­ter III Rights of the data subject

Sec­tion 1 Trans­pa­ren­cy and modalities

Artic­le 12 Trans­pa­rent infor­ma­ti­on, com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on and moda­li­ties for the exer­cise of the rights of the data subject

(The con­trol­ler shall take appro­pria­te mea­su­res to pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with all the infor­ma­ti­on refer­red to in Artic­les 13 and 14 and all the noti­fi­ca­ti­ons refer­red to in Artic­les 15 to 22 and Artic­le 34 rela­ting to the pro­ce­s­sing in a pre­cise, trans­pa­rent, com­pre­hen­si­ble and easi­ly acce­s­si­ble form in plain and simp­le lan­guage; this shall app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar to infor­ma­ti­on spe­ci­fi­cal­ly addres­sed to child­ren. The infor­ma­ti­on shall be pro­vi­ded in wri­ting or in ano­ther form, inclu­ding, whe­re appro­pria­te, elec­tro­ni­cal­ly. If reque­sted by the data sub­ject, the infor­ma­ti­on may be pro­vi­ded oral­ly, pro­vi­ded that the iden­ti­ty of the data sub­ject has been pro­ven in ano­ther form.
The con­trol­ler shall faci­li­ta­te the data subject’s exer­cise of his or her rights under Artic­les 15 to 22. In the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 11(2), the con­trol­ler may refu­se to act on the data subject’s request to exer­cise his or her rights under Artic­les 15 to 22 only if he or she cre­di­bly demon­stra­tes that he or she is unable to iden­ti­fy the data subject.
(The con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with infor­ma­ti­on on the mea­su­res taken upon request pur­su­ant to Artic­les 15 to 22 wit­hout undue delay and in any case within one month of rece­ipt of the request. This peri­od may be exten­ded by ano­ther two months if neces­sa­ry, taking into account the com­ple­xi­ty and the num­ber of requests. The data con­trol­ler shall inform the data sub­ject of any exten­si­on of the time limit, tog­e­ther with the rea­sons for the delay, within one month of rece­ipt of the request. If the data sub­ject makes the request elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, he or she shall be infor­med by elec­tro­nic means, if pos­si­ble, unless he or she indi­ca­tes otherwise.
(4) If the data con­trol­ler fails to act on the data subject’s request, it shall inform the data sub­ject wit­hout delay, but no later than within one month of rece­ipt of the request, of the rea­sons the­r­e­for and of the pos­si­bi­li­ty of lodging a com­plaint with a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or see­king judi­cial remedy.
(5. Infor­ma­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­les 13 and 14 and any noti­ces and mea­su­res pur­su­ant to Artic­les 15 to 22 and Artic­le 34 shall be pro­vi­ded free of char­ge. In the case of mani­fest­ly unfoun­ded or – in par­ti­cu­lar in the case of fre­quent repe­ti­ti­on – exce­s­si­ve requests by a data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler may either
a) Char­ge a rea­sonable fee that takes into account the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve costs of informing or noti­fy­ing or imple­men­ting the reque­sted action; or
b) refu­se to act on the request.
The respon­si­ble par­ty shall pro­vi­de evi­dence of the mani­fest­ly unfoun­ded or exce­s­si­ve natu­re of the request.
(6. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to Artic­le 11, whe­re the con­trol­ler has rea­sonable doubts about the iden­ti­ty of the natu­ral per­son making the request refer­red to in Artic­les 15 to 21, the con­trol­ler may request addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry to con­firm the iden­ti­ty of the data subject.
(7. The infor­ma­ti­on to be pro­vi­ded to data sub­jects pur­su­ant to Artic­les 13 and 14 may be pro­vi­ded in com­bi­na­ti­on with stan­dar­di­zed icons in order to give a meaningful over­view of the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing in an easi­ly per­ceiva­ble, under­stan­da­ble and cle­ar­ly com­pre­hen­si­ble form. If the pic­to­ri­al sym­bols are pre­sen­ted in elec­tro­nic form, they must be machine-readable.
(8. The Com­mis­si­on shall be empowered to adopt dele­ga­ted acts in accordance with Artic­le 92 con­cer­ning the defi­ni­ti­on of the infor­ma­ti­on to be repre­sen­ted by gra­phic sym­bols and the pro­ce­du­res for the pro­vi­si­on of stan­dar­di­zed gra­phic symbols.
Reci­tals
(58) The prin­ci­ple of trans­pa­ren­cy requi­res that infor­ma­ti­on inten­ded for the public or the data sub­ject should be accu­ra­te, easi­ly acce­s­si­ble and com­pre­hen­si­ble, in clear and plain lan­guage, and, whe­re appro­pria­te, should addi­tio­nal­ly use visu­al ele­ments. This infor­ma­ti­on could be pro­vi­ded in elec­tro­nic form, for exam­p­le on a web­site, if it is inten­ded for the public. This is espe­ci­al­ly true in situa­tions whe­re the lar­ge num­ber of par­ties invol­ved and the com­ple­xi­ty of the tech­no­lo­gy nee­ded to do so make it dif­fi­cult for the data sub­ject to know and under­stand whe­ther per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her are being coll­ec­ted, by whom, and for what pur­po­se, such as in the case of adver­ti­sing on the Inter­net. If the pro­ce­s­sing is direc­ted at child­ren, due to the spe­cial vul­nerabi­li­ty of child­ren, infor­ma­ti­on and noti­ces should be pro­vi­ded in such clear and simp­le lan­guage that a child can under­stand them.
(59) Moda­li­ties should be laid down to faci­li­ta­te the exer­cise of the rights of a data sub­ject under this Regu­la­ti­on, inclu­ding mecha­nisms to ensu­re that he or she can request and, whe­re appro­pria­te, obtain free of char­ge, in par­ti­cu­lar access to and rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re of per­so­nal data or exer­cise his or her right to object. Thus, the con­trol­ler should also ensu­re that requests can be made elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed elec­tro­ni­cal­ly. The con­trol­ler should be requi­red to respond to the data subject’s request wit­hout undue delay and, at the latest, within one month, and, whe­re appro­pria­te, to give rea­sons why it refu­ses the request.
(60) The prin­ci­ples of fair and trans­pa­rent pro­ce­s­sing requi­re that the data sub­ject be infor­med of the exi­stence of the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on and its pur­po­ses. The con­trol­ler should pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with any fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry to ensu­re fair and trans­pa­rent pro­ce­s­sing, taking into account the spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stances and con­text in which the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed. In addi­ti­on, he or she should inform the data sub­ject that pro­fil­ing is taking place and what the con­se­quen­ces are. In addi­ti­on, if the per­so­nal data are coll­ec­ted from the data sub­ject, he or she should be infor­med whe­ther he or she is obli­ged to pro­vi­de the per­so­nal data and what the con­se­quen­ces of with­hol­ding the data would be. The infor­ma­ti­on in que­sti­on may be pro­vi­ded in com­bi­na­ti­on with stan­dar­di­zed pic­to­ri­al icons to pro­vi­de a meaningful over­view of the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing in an easi­ly per­ceiva­ble, under­stan­da­ble and cle­ar­ly com­pre­hen­si­ble form. If the pic­to­ri­al sym­bols are pre­sen­ted in elec­tro­nic form, they should be machine-readable.

Sec­tion 2 Trans­pa­ren­cy and infor­ma­ti­on and right of access to per­so­nal data

Artic­le 13 Trans­pa­ren­cy and infor­ma­ti­on when coll­ec­ting per­so­nal data from the data subject

(1) If per­so­nal data are coll­ec­ted from the data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler shall inform the data sub­ject of the fol­lo­wing at the time of coll­ec­tion of such data:
a) the name and cont­act details of the per­son respon­si­ble and, if appli­ca­ble, his representative;
b) if appli­ca­ble, the cont­act details of the data pro­tec­tion officer;
c) the pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data are to be pro­ce­s­sed and the legal basis for the processing;
d) if the pro­ce­s­sing is based on Artic­le 6(1)(f), the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests pur­sued by the con­trol­ler or a third party;
e) whe­re appli­ca­ble, the reci­pi­en­ts or cate­go­ries of reci­pi­en­ts of the per­so­nal data; and
f) whe­re appli­ca­ble, the controller’s inten­ti­on to trans­fer the per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on and the exi­stence or absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on by the Com­mis­si­on or, in the case of trans­fers pur­su­ant to Artic­le 46 or Artic­le 47 or the second sub­pa­ra­graph of Artic­le 49(1), a refe­rence to the appro­pria­te or ade­qua­te safe­guards and how to obtain a copy of them or whe­re they are available.
(2) In addi­ti­on to the infor­ma­ti­on refer­red to in para­graph 1, the con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with the fol­lo­wing addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry to ensu­re fair and trans­pa­rent pro­ce­s­sing at the time of coll­ec­tion of such data:
a) the dura­ti­on for which the per­so­nal data will be stored or, if this is not pos­si­ble, the cri­te­ria for deter­mi­ning this duration;
b) the exi­stence of a right of access on the part of the con­trol­ler to the per­so­nal data con­cer­ned, as well as to rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re or to rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing or a right to object to pro­ce­s­sing, as well as the right to data portability;
c) if the pro­ce­s­sing is based on Artic­le 6(1)(a) or Artic­le 9(2)(a), the exi­stence of a right to with­draw con­sent at any time wit­hout affec­ting the lawful­ness of the pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out on the basis of con­sent until withdrawal;
d) the exi­stence of a right of appeal to a super­vi­so­ry authority;
e) whe­ther the pro­vi­si­on of the per­so­nal data is requi­red by law or by con­tract or is neces­sa­ry for the con­clu­si­on of a con­tract, whe­ther the data sub­ject is obli­ged to pro­vi­de the per­so­nal data and what the pos­si­ble con­se­quen­ces of not pro­vi­ding the data would be, and
f) the exi­stence of auto­ma­ted decis­i­on-making, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, pur­su­ant to Artic­le 22(1) and (4) and, at least in tho­se cases, meaningful infor­ma­ti­on about the logic invol­ved and the scope and inten­ded effects of such pro­ce­s­sing for the data subject.
(Whe­re the con­trol­ler intends to fur­ther pro­cess the per­so­nal data for a pur­po­se other than that for which the per­so­nal data were coll­ec­ted, the con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with infor­ma­ti­on on that other pur­po­se and any other rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on pur­su­ant to para­graph 2 pri­or to such fur­ther processing.
(4) Para­graphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not app­ly if and to the ext­ent that the data sub­ject alre­a­dy pos­s­es­ses the information.
Reci­tals
(61) The fact that per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her are being pro­ce­s­sed should be com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the data sub­ject at the time of coll­ec­tion or, if the data are not obtai­ned from him or her but from ano­ther source, within a rea­sonable peri­od of time, depen­ding on the spe­ci­fic case. If the per­so­nal data may lawful­ly be dis­c­lo­sed to ano­ther reci­pi­ent, the data sub­ject should be made awa­re of this when the per­so­nal data is first dis­c­lo­sed to that reci­pi­ent. If the con­trol­ler intends to pro­cess the per­so­nal data for a pur­po­se other than that for which the data were coll­ec­ted, it should pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with infor­ma­ti­on about that other pur­po­se and other neces­sa­ry infor­ma­ti­on pri­or to such fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing. If it was not pos­si­ble to inform the data sub­ject of the ori­gin of the per­so­nal data becau­se dif­fe­rent sources were used, the infor­ma­ti­on should be pro­vi­ded in gene­ral terms.

Artic­le 14 Trans­pa­ren­cy and infor­ma­ti­on when the per­so­nal data have not been coll­ec­ted from the data subject

(1) If per­so­nal data are not coll­ec­ted from the data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler shall inform the data sub­ject of the following:
a) the name and cont­act details of the per­son respon­si­ble and, if appli­ca­ble, his representative;
b) addi­tio­nal­ly the cont­act details of the data pro­tec­tion officer;
c) the pur­po­ses for which the per­so­nal data are to be pro­ce­s­sed and the legal basis for the processing;
d) the cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data that are processed;
e) whe­re appli­ca­ble, the reci­pi­en­ts or cate­go­ries of reci­pi­en­ts of the per­so­nal data;
f) whe­re appli­ca­ble, the controller’s inten­ti­on to trans­fer the per­so­nal data to a reci­pi­ent in a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on and the exi­stence or absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on by the Com­mis­si­on or, in the case of trans­fers pur­su­ant to Artic­le 46 or Artic­le 47 or Artic­le 49(1), second sub­pa­ra­graph, a refe­rence to the appro­pria­te or ade­qua­te safe­guards and the pos­si­bi­li­ty of obtai­ning a copy of them or whe­re they are available.
(2) In addi­ti­on to the infor­ma­ti­on refer­red to in para­graph 1, the con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with the fol­lo­wing infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry to ensu­re fair and trans­pa­rent pro­ce­s­sing vis-à-vis the data subject:
a) the dura­ti­on for which the per­so­nal data will be stored or, if this is not pos­si­ble, the cri­te­ria for deter­mi­ning this duration;
b) if the pro­ce­s­sing is based on Artic­le 6(1)(f), the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests pur­sued by the con­trol­ler or a third party;
c) the exi­stence of a right of access on the part of the con­trol­ler to the per­so­nal data con­cer­ned and to rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re or = to rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing and a right to object to pro­ce­s­sing and the right to data portability;
d) if the pro­ce­s­sing is based on Artic­le 6(1)(a) or Artic­le 9(2)(a), the exi­stence of a right to with­draw con­sent at any time wit­hout affec­ting the lawful­ness of the pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out on the basis of con­sent until withdrawal;
e) the exi­stence of a right of appeal to a super­vi­so­ry authority;
f) the source of the per­so­nal data and, if appli­ca­ble, whe­ther it comes from publicly available sources;
g) the exi­stence of auto­ma­ted decis­i­on-making, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, pur­su­ant to Artic­le 22(1) and (4) and, at least in tho­se cases, meaningful infor­ma­ti­on about the logic invol­ved and the scope and inten­ded effects of such pro­ce­s­sing for the data subject.
(3) The respon­si­ble per­son shall pro­vi­de the infor­ma­ti­on pur­su­ant to para­graphs 1 and 2
a) taking into account the spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stances of the pro­ce­s­sing of the per­so­nal data, within a rea­sonable peri­od after obtai­ning the per­so­nal data, but no lon­ger than within one month,
b) if the per­so­nal data are to be used to com­mu­ni­ca­te with the data sub­ject, at the latest at the time of the first com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on to him, or,
c) if dis­clo­sure to ano­ther reci­pi­ent is inten­ded, no later than the time of the first disclosure.
(Whe­re the con­trol­ler intends to fur­ther pro­cess the per­so­nal data for a pur­po­se other than that for which the per­so­nal data were obtai­ned, the con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de the data sub­ject with infor­ma­ti­on on that other pur­po­se and any other rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on pur­su­ant to para­graph 2 pri­or to such fur­ther processing.
(5) Para­graphs 1 to 4 shall not app­ly if and to the ext­ent that
a) the data sub­ject alre­a­dy has the information,
b) the pro­vi­si­on of such infor­ma­ti­on pro­ves impos­si­ble or would invol­ve a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort, in par­ti­cu­lar for pro­ce­s­sing for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses, sub­ject to the con­di­ti­ons and safe­guards refer­red to in Artic­le 89(1), or inso­far as the obli­ga­ti­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le is likely to ren­der impos­si­ble or serious­ly pre­ju­di­ce the achie­ve­ment of the pur­po­ses of such pro­ce­s­sing. In such cases, the con­trol­ler shall take appro­pria­te mea­su­res to pro­tect the rights and free­doms and legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the data sub­ject, inclu­ding making such infor­ma­ti­on available to the public,
c) the obtai­ning or dis­clo­sure is express­ly regu­la­ted by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject and which pro­vi­des for appro­pria­te mea­su­res to pro­tect the data subject’s legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests, or
d) the per­so­nal data are sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy, inclu­ding a sta­tu­to­ry duty of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty, in accordance with Uni­on law or the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes and must the­r­e­fo­re be trea­ted confidentially.
Reci­tals
[see also Reci­tal 61]
(62) Howe­ver, the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on is unneces­sa­ry if the data sub­ject alre­a­dy has the infor­ma­ti­on, if the sto­rage or dis­clo­sure of the per­so­nal data is express­ly regu­la­ted by law, or if informing the data sub­ject pro­ves impos­si­ble or would invol­ve a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort. The lat­ter could be the case, in par­ti­cu­lar, in the case of pro­ce­s­sing for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses. The num­ber of data sub­jects, the age of the data or any appro­pria­te safe­guards should be con­side­red as indications.

Artic­le 15 Right of access of the data subject

(1) The data sub­ject shall have the right to obtain from the con­trol­ler con­fir­ma­ti­on as to whe­ther per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her are being pro­ce­s­sed; if this is the case, he or she shall have the right to obtain access to such per­so­nal data and the fol­lo­wing information:
a) the pur­po­ses of processing;
b) the cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data that are processed;
c) the reci­pi­en­ts or cate­go­ries of reci­pi­en­ts to whom the per­so­nal data have been or will be dis­c­lo­sed, in par­ti­cu­lar in the case of reci­pi­en­ts in third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal organizations;
d) if pos­si­ble, the plan­ned dura­ti­on for which the per­so­nal data will be stored or, if this is not pos­si­ble, the cri­te­ria for deter­mi­ning this duration;
e) the exi­stence of a right to obtain the rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her, or to obtain the rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing by the con­trol­ler, or a right to object to such processing;
f) the exi­stence of a right of appeal to a super­vi­so­ry authority;
g) if the per­so­nal data are not coll­ec­ted from the data sub­ject, any available infor­ma­ti­on on the ori­gin of the data;
h) the exi­stence of auto­ma­ted decis­i­on-making, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, pur­su­ant to Artic­le 22(1) and (4) and, at least in tho­se cases, meaningful infor­ma­ti­on about the logic invol­ved and the scope and inten­ded effects of such pro­ce­s­sing for the data subject.
(Whe­re per­so­nal data are trans­fer­red to a third coun­try or to an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, the data sub­ject shall have the right to be infor­med of the appro­pria­te safe­guards refer­red to in Artic­le 46 in con­nec­tion with the transfer.
(3) The con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de a copy of the per­so­nal data sub­ject to pro­ce­s­sing. For any addi­tio­nal copies reque­sted by the data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler may char­ge a rea­sonable fee based on the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve costs. If the data sub­ject makes the request elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, the infor­ma­ti­on shall be pro­vi­ded in a com­mon­ly used elec­tro­nic for­mat, unless other­wi­se spe­ci­fi­ed by the data subject.
(4) The right to recei­ve a copy under para­graph 3 shall not inter­fe­re with the rights and free­doms of other persons.
Reci­tals
(63) A data sub­ject should have the right of access to per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her which have been coll­ec­ted and should be able to exer­cise that right easi­ly and at rea­sonable inter­vals in order to be awa­re of the pro­ce­s­sing and to veri­fy its lawful­ness. This inclu­des the right of data sub­jects to have access to their own health-rela­ted data, such as data in their pati­ent files con­tai­ning infor­ma­ti­on such as dia­gno­ses, exami­na­ti­on results, fin­dings of the trea­ting phy­si­ci­ans and infor­ma­ti­on on tre­at­ments or inter­ven­ti­ons. Every data sub­ject should the­r­e­fo­re be entit­led to know and be infor­med, in par­ti­cu­lar, for what pur­po­ses the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed and, whe­re pos­si­ble, for how long they are stored, who are the reci­pi­en­ts of the per­so­nal data, what is the logic invol­ved in the auto­ma­tic pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data and what are the likely con­se­quen­ces of such pro­ce­s­sing, at least in cases whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is based on pro­fil­ing. Whe­re pos­si­ble, the con­trol­ler should be able to pro­vi­de remo­te access to a secu­re system that would allow the data sub­ject direct access to his or her per­so­nal data. This right should not affect the rights and free­doms of other indi­vi­du­als, such as trade secrets or intellec­tu­al pro­per­ty rights and in par­ti­cu­lar copy­right in soft­ware. Howe­ver, this should not result in denying the data sub­ject any access. Whe­re the con­trol­ler pro­ce­s­ses a lar­ge amount of infor­ma­ti­on about the data sub­ject, he should be able to requi­re that the data sub­ject spe­ci­fy to which infor­ma­ti­on or which pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons his request for infor­ma­ti­on rela­tes befo­re he gives him access.

Sec­tion 3 Cor­rec­tion and deletion

Artic­le 16 Right of rectification

The data sub­ject shall have the right to obtain from the con­trol­ler the rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on wit­hout undue delay of inac­cu­ra­te per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her. Taking into account the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, the data sub­ject has the right to request that incom­ple­te per­so­nal data be com­ple­ted, inclu­ding by means of a sup­ple­men­ta­ry declaration. 

(1) The data sub­ject shall have the right to obtain from the con­trol­ler the era­su­re wit­hout delay of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her, and the con­trol­ler shall be obli­ged to era­se per­so­nal data wit­hout delay whe­re one of the fol­lo­wing rea­sons applies:
a) The per­so­nal data are no lon­ger neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses for which they were coll­ec­ted or other­wi­se processed.
b) The data sub­ject revo­kes the con­sent on which the pro­ce­s­sing was based pur­su­ant to Artic­le 6(1)(a) or Artic­le 9(2)(a) and the­re is no other legal basis for the processing.
c) The data sub­ject objects to the pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to Artic­le 21(1) and the­re are no over­ri­ding legi­ti­ma­te grounds for the pro­ce­s­sing, or the data sub­ject objects to the pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to Artic­le 21(2).
d) The per­so­nal data have been pro­ce­s­sed unlawfully.
e) The dele­ti­on of the per­so­nal data is neces­sa­ry for com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law to which the con­trol­ler is subject.
f) The per­so­nal data have been coll­ec­ted in rela­ti­on to infor­ma­ti­on socie­ty ser­vices offe­red in accordance with Artic­le 8(1).
(2) If the con­trol­ler has made the per­so­nal data public and is obli­ged to era­se it pur­su­ant to para­graph 1, it shall take rea­sonable mea­su­res, inclu­ding tech­ni­cal mea­su­res, having regard to the available tech­no­lo­gy and the cost of imple­men­ta­ti­on, to inform data con­trol­lers which pro­cess the per­so­nal data that a data sub­ject has reque­sted that they era­se all links to or copies or repli­ca­ti­ons of that per­so­nal data.
(3) Para­graphs 1 and 2 shall not app­ly inso­far as the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry to
a) to exer­cise the right to free­dom of expres­si­on and information;
b) for com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on which requi­res pro­ce­s­sing under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject, or for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the controller;
c) for rea­sons of public inte­rest in the field of public health in accordance with Artic­le 9(2)(h) and (i) and Artic­le 9(3);
d) for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses as refer­red to in Artic­le 89(1), whe­re the right refer­red to in para­graph 1 is likely to ren­der impos­si­ble or serious­ly pre­ju­di­ce the achie­ve­ment of the pur­po­ses of such pro­ce­s­sing, or
e) for the asser­ti­on, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims.
Reci­tals
(65) A data sub­ject should have a right of rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her and a “Right to be for­got­ten” if the sto­rage of their data inf­rin­ges this Regu­la­ti­on or Uni­on law or the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject. In par­ti­cu­lar, data sub­jects should be entit­led to have their per­so­nal data era­sed and no lon­ger pro­ce­s­sed whe­re the per­so­nal data are no lon­ger neces­sa­ry in rela­ti­on to the pur­po­ses for which they were coll­ec­ted or other­wi­se pro­ce­s­sed, whe­re data sub­jects have with­drawn their con­sent to pro­ce­s­sing or objec­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning them, or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing of their per­so­nal data other­wi­se inf­rin­ges this Regu­la­ti­on. This right is par­ti­cu­lar­ly important in cases whe­re the data sub­ject gave his or her con­sent while still a child and, in this respect, could not ful­ly fore­see the risks asso­cia­ted with the pro­ce­s­sing and wis­hes to era­se the per­so­nal data – espe­ci­al­ly tho­se stored on the Inter­net – at a later stage. The data sub­ject should be able to exer­cise this right even if he or she is no lon­ger a child. Howe­ver, the con­tin­ued sto­rage of the per­so­nal data should be lawful if it is neces­sa­ry for the exer­cise of the right to free­dom of expres­si­on and infor­ma­ti­on, for com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on, for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler, for rea­sons of public inte­rest in the field of public health, for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses, or for the estab­lish­ment, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims.
(66) In order to meet the “Right to be for­got­ten” on the net­work, the right to era­su­re should be exten­ded by requi­ring a con­trol­ler who has made the per­so­nal data public to noti­fy the con­trol­lers who pro­cess that per­so­nal data to era­se all links to, or copies or repli­ca­ti­ons of, that per­so­nal data. In doing so, the con­trol­ler should take rea­sonable mea­su­res, inclu­ding tech­ni­cal mea­su­res, taking into account the available tech­no­lo­gies and means at its dis­po­sal, to inform the con­trol­lers pro­ce­s­sing such per­so­nal data of the data subject’s request.

Artic­le 18 Right to rest­ric­tion of processing

(1) The data sub­ject shall have the right to obtain from the con­trol­ler the rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing if one of the fol­lo­wing con­di­ti­ons is met:
a) the accu­ra­cy of the per­so­nal data is con­te­sted by the data sub­ject for a peri­od enab­ling the con­trol­ler to veri­fy the accu­ra­cy of the per­so­nal data,
b) the pro­ce­s­sing is unlawful and the data sub­ject refu­ses the era­su­re of the per­so­nal data and instead requests the rest­ric­tion of the use of the per­so­nal data;
c) the con­trol­ler no lon­ger needs the per­so­nal data for the pur­po­ses of pro­ce­s­sing, but the data sub­ject needs them for the estab­lish­ment, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims, or
d) the data sub­ject has objec­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to Artic­le 21(1), as long as it is not yet estab­lished whe­ther the legi­ti­ma­te grounds of the con­trol­ler over­ri­de tho­se of the data subject.
(Whe­re pro­ce­s­sing has been rest­ric­ted in accordance with para­graph 1, tho­se per­so­nal data may be pro­ce­s­sed, except for sto­rage, only with the con­sent of the data sub­ject or for the estab­lish­ment, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims or for the pro­tec­tion of the rights of ano­ther natu­ral or legal per­son or for rea­sons of sub­stan­ti­al public inte­rest of the Uni­on or of a Mem­ber State.
(3) A data sub­ject who has obtai­ned a rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to para­graph 1 shall be infor­med by the con­trol­ler befo­re the rest­ric­tion is lifted.
Reci­tals
(67) Methods to rest­rict the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data could include tem­po­r­a­ri­ly trans­fer­ring sel­ec­ted per­so­nal data to ano­ther pro­ce­s­sing system, blocking them from users, or tem­po­r­a­ri­ly remo­ving published data from a web­site. In auto­ma­ted file systems, the rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing should in prin­ci­ple be car­ri­ed out by tech­ni­cal means in such a way that the per­so­nal data can­not be fur­ther pro­ce­s­sed in any way and can­not be modi­fi­ed. The fact that the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data has been rest­ric­ted should be cle­ar­ly indi­ca­ted in the system.

Artic­le 19 Noti­fi­ca­ti­on obli­ga­ti­on in con­nec­tion with the rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re of per­so­nal data or the rest­ric­tion of processing

The con­trol­ler shall noti­fy all reci­pi­en­ts to whom per­so­nal data have been dis­c­lo­sed of any rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re of the per­so­nal data or rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to Artic­le 16, Artic­le 17(1) and Artic­le 18, unless this pro­ves impos­si­ble or invol­ves a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort. The con­trol­ler shall inform the data sub­ject of the­se reci­pi­en­ts if the data sub­ject so requests. 

Artic­le 20 Right to data portability

(1) The data sub­ject shall have the right to recei­ve the per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her that he or she has pro­vi­ded to a con­trol­ler in a struc­tu­red, com­mon­ly used and machi­ne-rea­da­ble for­mat, and shall have the right to trans­mit such data to ano­ther con­trol­ler wit­hout hin­drance from the con­trol­ler to whom the per­so­nal data have been pro­vi­ded, pro­vi­ded that
a) the pro­ce­s­sing is based on con­sent pur­su­ant to Artic­le 6(1)(a) or Artic­le 9(2)(a) or on a con­tract pur­su­ant to Artic­le 6(1)(b); and
b) the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out with the help of auto­ma­ted procedures.
(2) When exer­cis­ing his or her right to data por­ta­bi­li­ty pur­su­ant to para­graph 1, the data sub­ject shall have the right to obtain that the per­so­nal data be trans­fer­red direct­ly from one con­trol­ler to ano­ther con­trol­ler, whe­re tech­ni­cal­ly feasible.
(The exer­cise of the right refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le shall be wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to Artic­le 17. This right shall not app­ly to pro­ce­s­sing neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the controller.
(4) The right refer­red to in para­graph 2 of this Artic­le shall not inter­fe­re with the rights and free­doms of other persons.
Reci­tals
(68) In order to have bet­ter con­trol over their own data in case of pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by auto­ma­tic means, the data sub­ject should also be entit­led to recei­ve the per­so­nal data rela­ting to him or her which he or she has pro­vi­ded to a con­trol­ler in a struc­tu­red, com­mon­ly used, machi­ne-rea­da­ble and inter­ope­ra­ble for­mat and to trans­mit them to ano­ther con­trol­ler. Con­trol­lers should be encou­ra­ged to deve­lop inter­ope­ra­ble for­mats that enable data por­ta­bi­li­ty. This right should app­ly whe­re the data sub­ject has pro­vi­ded the per­so­nal data with his or her con­sent or the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a con­tract. It should not app­ly if the pro­ce­s­sing is based on a legal basis other than their con­sent or a con­tract. By its natu­re, this right should not be exer­cis­ed against con­trol­lers who pro­cess per­so­nal data in the per­for­mance of their public tasks. It should the­r­e­fo­re not app­ly whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data is neces­sa­ry for com­pli­ance with a legal obli­ga­ti­on to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject or for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler. The right of the data sub­ject to trans­mit or recei­ve per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her should not crea­te an obli­ga­ti­on for the con­trol­ler to adopt or main­tain tech­ni­cal­ly com­pa­ti­ble data pro­ce­s­sing systems. Whe­re, in the case of a given set of per­so­nal data, more than one data sub­ject is affec­ted, the right to recei­ve the data should be wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of other data sub­jects under this Regu­la­ti­on. Moreo­ver, that right should not affect the data subject’s right to era­su­re of his or her per­so­nal data and the limi­ta­ti­ons on that right under this Regu­la­ti­on and, in par­ti­cu­lar, should not mean that the data rela­ting to the data sub­ject and pro­vi­ded by him or her for the per­for­mance of a con­tract are era­sed to the ext­ent and for as long as tho­se per­so­nal data are neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of the con­tract. Whe­re tech­ni­cal­ly fea­si­ble, the data sub­ject should have the right to obtain that the per­so­nal data be trans­fer­red direct­ly from one con­trol­ler to ano­ther controller.

Sec­tion 4 Right to object and auto­ma­ted decis­i­on-making in indi­vi­du­al cases

Artic­le 21 Right of objection

(1) The data sub­ject shall have the right to object at any time, on grounds rela­ting to his or her par­ti­cu­lar situa­ti­on, to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her which is car­ri­ed out on the basis of Artic­le 6(1)(e) or (f); this shall also app­ly to any pro­fil­ing based on tho­se pro­vi­si­ons. The con­trol­ler shall no lon­ger pro­cess the per­so­nal data unless he can demon­stra­te com­pel­ling legi­ti­ma­te grounds for the pro­ce­s­sing which over­ri­de the inte­rests, rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject, or for the estab­lish­ment, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims.
(2) If per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed for the pur­po­se of direct mar­ke­ting, the data sub­ject shall have the right to object at any time to pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her for such mar­ke­ting; this shall also app­ly to pro­fil­ing inso­far as it is rela­ted to such direct marketing.
(3) If the data sub­ject objects to pro­ce­s­sing for direct mar­ke­ting pur­po­ses, the per­so­nal data shall no lon­ger be pro­ce­s­sed for the­se purposes.
(4) The data sub­ject shall be express­ly infor­med of the right refer­red to in para­graphs (1) and (2) no later than at the time of the first com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on with him or her; this infor­ma­ti­on shall be pro­vi­ded in a com­pre­hen­si­ble form sepa­ra­te from other information.
(5) In the con­text of the use of infor­ma­ti­on socie­ty ser­vices, not­wi­th­stan­ding Direc­ti­ve 2002/58/EC, the data sub­ject may exer­cise his or her right to object by means of auto­ma­ted pro­ce­du­res using tech­ni­cal specifications.
6. The data sub­ject shall have the right, on grounds rela­ting to his or her par­ti­cu­lar situa­ti­on, to object to pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data con­cer­ning him or her which is car­ri­ed out for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses pur­su­ant to Artic­le 89(1), unless the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public interest.
Reci­tals
(69) Whe­re the per­so­nal data may be lawful­ly pro­ce­s­sed becau­se the pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest or in the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty vested in the con­trol­ler, or on grounds of the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest of the con­trol­ler or a third par­ty, any data sub­ject should nevert­hel­ess have the right to object to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to his or her par­ti­cu­lar situa­ti­on. The con­trol­ler should have to demon­stra­te that its com­pel­ling legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests over­ri­de the inte­rests or fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of the data subject.
(70) Whe­re per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed for the pur­po­ses of direct mar­ke­ting, the data sub­ject should be able to object, free of char­ge, at any time to such pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, whe­ther car­ri­ed out initi­al­ly or sub­se­quent­ly, inso­far as it rela­tes to such direct mar­ke­ting. The data sub­ject should be express­ly infor­med of this right; this infor­ma­ti­on should be pro­vi­ded in a com­pre­hen­si­ble form, sepa­ra­te from other information.

Artic­le 22 Auto­ma­ted decis­i­ons in indi­vi­du­al cases inclu­ding profiling

(1) The data sub­ject shall have the right not to be sub­ject to a decis­i­on based sole­ly on auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, which pro­du­ces legal effects con­cer­ning him or her or simi­lar­ly signi­fi­cant­ly affects him or her.
(2) Para­graph (1) shall not app­ly if the decis­i­on is
a) is neces­sa­ry for the con­clu­si­on or per­for­mance of a con­tract bet­ween the data sub­ject and the controller,
b) is per­mit­ted by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te legis­la­ti­on to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject and that legis­la­ti­on con­ta­ins appro­pria­te mea­su­res to safe­guard the rights and free­doms and legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the data sub­ject, or
c) takes place with the express con­sent of the data subject.
(3) In the cases refer­red to in para­graph 2(a) and (c), the con­trol­ler shall take rea­sonable steps to safe­guard the rights and free­doms as well as the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the data sub­ject, which shall include, at least, the right to obtain the inter­ven­ti­on of a per­son on the part of the con­trol­ler, to express his or her point of view and to con­test the decision.
Decis­i­ons refer­red to in para­graph 2 shall not be based on spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data refer­red to in Artic­le 9(1), unless Artic­le 9(2)(a) or (g) applies and appro­pria­te mea­su­res have been taken to pro­tect the rights and free­doms and legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the data subject.
Reci­tals
(71) The data sub­ject should have the right not to be sub­ject to a decis­i­on – which may include a mea­su­re – eva­lua­ting per­so­nal aspects rela­ting to him or her which is based sole­ly on auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing and which pro­du­ces legal effects con­cer­ning him or her or simi­lar­ly signi­fi­cant­ly affects him or her, such as the auto­ma­tic rejec­tion of an online cre­dit appli­ca­ti­on or online recruit­ment pro­ce­du­res wit­hout any human inter­ven­ti­on. Such pro­ce­s­sing also inclu­des the “Pro­fil­ing”, which con­sists in any form of auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data eva­lua­ting per­so­nal aspects rela­ting to a natu­ral per­son, in par­ti­cu­lar for the pur­po­se of ana­ly­zing or fore­ca­sting aspects con­cer­ning the data subject’s per­for­mance at work, eco­no­mic situa­ti­on, health, per­so­nal pre­fe­ren­ces or inte­rests, relia­bi­li­ty or con­duct, loca­ti­on or chan­ge of loca­ti­on, whe­re this pro­du­ces legal effects con­cer­ning the data sub­ject or simi­lar­ly signi­fi­cant­ly affects him or her. Howe­ver, decis­i­on making based on such pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, should be allo­wed whe­re express­ly per­mit­ted by Uni­on law or the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject, inclu­ding in order to com­ply with the rules, stan­dards and recom­men­da­ti­ons of Uni­on insti­tu­ti­ons or natio­nal super­vi­so­ry bodies, to moni­tor and pre­vent fraud and tax eva­si­on and to ensu­re the secu­ri­ty and relia­bi­li­ty of a ser­vice pro­vi­ded by the con­trol­ler, or whe­re it is neces­sa­ry for the con­clu­si­on or per­for­mance of a con­tract bet­ween the data sub­ject and a con­trol­ler, or whe­re the data sub­ject has given his or her expli­cit con­sent. In any case, such pro­ce­s­sing should be sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding spe­ci­fic infor­ma­ti­on to the data sub­ject and the right to direct inter­ven­ti­on by a per­son, to express his or her point of view, to have the decis­i­on taken after an appro­pria­te eva­lua­ti­on explai­ned, and to have the right to chall­enge the decis­i­on. This mea­su­re should not affect a child.
In order to ensu­re fair and trans­pa­rent pro­ce­s­sing vis-à-vis the data sub­ject, taking into account the spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stances and con­text in which the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed, the con­trol­ler should use appro­pria­te mathe­ma­ti­cal or sta­tis­ti­cal methods for pro­fil­ing, imple­ment tech­ni­cal and orga­ni­sa­tio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re in an appro­pria­te man­ner, in par­ti­cu­lar, that fac­tors lea­ding to inac­cu­ra­te per­so­nal data, are cor­rec­ted and the risk of error is mini­mi­zed, and secu­re per­so­nal data in a man­ner that takes into account poten­ti­al thre­ats to the inte­rests and rights of the data sub­ject and that pre­vents dis­cri­mi­na­to­ry effects against natu­ral per­sons on the basis of race, eth­nic ori­gin, poli­ti­cal opi­ni­on, reli­gi­on or belief, trade uni­on mem­ber­ship, gene­tic make­up or health sta­tus, and sexu­al ori­en­ta­ti­on, or mea­su­res that have such an effect. Auto­ma­ted decis­i­on making and pro­fil­ing based on spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data should only be allo­wed under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons.
(72) Pro­fil­ing is sub­ject to the rules laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, such as the legal basis for the pro­ce­s­sing or the data pro­tec­tion prin­ci­ples. The Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board estab­lished by this Regu­la­ti­on (her­ein­af­ter “Com­mit­tee”) should be able to issue gui­de­lines in this regard.

Sec­tion 5 Restrictions

Artic­le 23 Restrictions

(Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te legis­la­ti­on to which the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor is sub­ject may, by way of legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­res, rest­rict the obli­ga­ti­ons and rights refer­red to in Artic­les 12 to 22 and Artic­le 34, and Artic­le 5 in so far as its pro­vi­si­ons cor­re­spond to the rights and obli­ga­ti­ons pro­vi­ded for in Artic­les 12 to 22, pro­vi­ded that such rest­ric­tion respects the essence of fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms and con­sti­tu­tes a neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te mea­su­re in a demo­cra­tic socie­ty ensu­ring the following:
a) natio­nal security;
b) natio­nal defense;
c) public safety;
d) the pre­ven­ti­on, inve­sti­ga­ti­on, detec­tion or pro­se­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal offen­ses or the exe­cu­ti­on of sen­ten­ces, inclu­ding the pro­tec­tion against and the pre­ven­ti­on of thre­ats to public safety;
e) the pro­tec­tion of other important objec­ti­ves of gene­ral public inte­rest of the Uni­on or of a Mem­ber Sta­te, in par­ti­cu­lar an important eco­no­mic or finan­cial inte­rest of the Uni­on or of a Mem­ber Sta­te, such as in the mone­ta­ry, bud­ge­ta­ry, fis­cal, public health and social secu­ri­ty fields;
f) the pro­tec­tion of the inde­pen­dence of the judi­cia­ry and the pro­tec­tion of judi­cial proceedings;
g) the pre­ven­ti­on, detec­tion, inve­sti­ga­ti­on and pro­se­cu­ti­on of vio­la­ti­ons of the pro­fes­sio­nal rules of regu­la­ted professions;
h) con­trol, super­vi­so­ry and regu­la­to­ry func­tions per­ma­nent­ly or tem­po­r­a­ri­ly con­nec­ted with the exer­cise of offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty for the pur­po­ses refer­red to in sub­pa­ra­graphs (a) to (e) and (g);
i) the pro­tec­tion of the data sub­ject or the rights and free­doms of others;
j) the enforce­ment of civil claims.
(2) Any legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­re refer­red to in para­graph (1) shall, in par­ti­cu­lar, con­tain spe­ci­fic pro­vi­si­ons, as appro­pria­te, at least with respect to the following
a) the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing or the cate­go­ries of processing,
b) the cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data,
c) the scope of the rest­ric­tions made,
d) the safe­guards against misu­se or unlawful access or unlawful transmission;
e) the details of the per­son or cate­go­ries of per­sons responsible,
f) the respec­ti­ve sto­rage peri­ods and the appli­ca­ble safe­guards, taking into account the natu­re, scope and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing or the cate­go­ries of processing,
g) the risks to the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects, and
h) the right of data sub­jects to be infor­med of the rest­ric­tion, unless this is detri­men­tal to the pur­po­se of the restriction.
Reci­tals
(73) Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may pro­vi­de for limi­ta­ti­ons with regard to cer­tain prin­ci­ples and with regard to the right of infor­ma­ti­on, access to and rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re of per­so­nal data, the right to data por­ta­bi­li­ty and to object, decis­i­ons based on pro­fil­ing, as well as noti­fi­ca­ti­ons of a per­so­nal data breach to a data sub­ject and cer­tain rela­ted obli­ga­ti­ons of data con­trol­lers, to the ext­ent neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te in a demo­cra­tic socie­ty to main­tain public safe­ty, inclu­ding, but not limi­t­ed to, the pro­tec­tion of human life, in par­ti­cu­lar in the event of natu­ral or man-made dis­asters, the pre­ven­ti­on, detec­tion and pro­se­cu­ti­on of cri­mi­nal offen­ces or the exe­cu­ti­on of sen­ten­ces – which inclu­des the pro­tec­tion against and the pre­ven­ti­on of thre­ats to public secu­ri­ty – or the pre­ven­ti­on, detec­tion and pro­se­cu­ti­on of brea­ches of pro­fes­sio­nal ethics in the case of regu­la­ted pro­fes­si­ons, the kee­ping of public regi­sters for rea­sons of gene­ral public inte­rest, and the fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing of archi­ved per­so­nal data to pro­vi­de spe­ci­fic infor­ma­ti­on rela­ted to poli­ti­cal beha­vi­or under for­mer tota­li­ta­ri­an regimes, and to pro­tect other important objec­ti­ves of gene­ral public inte­rest of the Uni­on or a Mem­ber Sta­te, such as important eco­no­mic or finan­cial inte­rests, or to pro­tect the data sub­ject and the rights and free­doms of others, inclu­ding in the are­as of social secu­ri­ty, public health and huma­ni­ta­ri­an aid. The­se rest­ric­tions should be con­si­stent with the Char­ter and with the Euro­pean Con­ven­ti­on for the Pro­tec­tion of Human Rights and Fun­da­men­tal Freedoms.

Chap­ter IV Con­trol­ler and Processor

Sec­tion 1 Gene­ral Duties

Artic­le 24 Respon­si­bi­li­ty of the controller

(1. The con­trol­ler shall imple­ment appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re and pro­vi­de evi­dence that the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out in com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account the natu­re, scope, con­text and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing as well as the vary­ing likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty of the risks to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons. Tho­se mea­su­res shall be review­ed and updated as necessary.
(2) Pro­vi­ded that it is pro­por­tio­na­te to the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties, the mea­su­res refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall include the appli­ca­ti­on by the con­trol­ler of appro­pria­te data pro­tec­tion safeguards.
(3) Com­pli­ance with the appro­ved rules of con­duct pur­su­ant to Artic­le 40 or with an appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42 of may be used as a con­side­ra­ti­on to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the obli­ga­ti­ons of the controller.
Reci­tals
(74) The respon­si­bi­li­ty and lia­bi­li­ty of the con­trol­ler for any pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data car­ri­ed out by it or on its behalf should be regu­la­ted. In par­ti­cu­lar, the con­trol­ler should be requi­red to take appro­pria­te and effec­ti­ve mea­su­res and to be able to demon­stra­te that the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties com­ply with this Regu­la­ti­on and that the mea­su­res are also effec­ti­ve. In doing so, he should take into account the natu­re, scope, cir­cum­stances and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing and the risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral persons.
(75) The risks to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons – with vary­ing likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty – may ari­se from pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data that could result in phy­si­cal, mate­ri­al or non-mate­ri­al dama­ge, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing may result in dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on, iden­ti­ty theft or fraud, finan­cial loss, dama­ge to repu­ta­ti­on, loss of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty of per­so­nal data sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy, unaut­ho­ri­zed rem­oval of pseud­ony­mizati­on, or other signi­fi­cant eco­no­mic or social dis­ad­van­ta­ge, if data sub­jects are depri­ved of their rights and free­doms or pre­ven­ted from con­trol­ling per­so­nal data con­cer­ning them, if per­so­nal data reve­al­ing racial or eth­nic ori­gin, poli­ti­cal opi­ni­ons, reli­gious or phi­lo­so­phi­cal beliefs or trade uni­on mem­ber­ship, and gene­tic data, health data or data con­cer­ning sexu­al life or cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces or rela­ted secu­ri­ty mea­su­res are pro­ce­s­sed, when per­so­nal aspects are eva­lua­ted, in par­ti­cu­lar when aspects con­cer­ning work per­for­mance, eco­no­mic situa­ti­on, health, per­so­nal pre­fe­ren­ces or inte­rests, relia­bi­li­ty or beha­vi­or, loca­ti­on or chan­ge of loca­ti­on are ana­ly­zed or pre­dic­ted in order to crea­te or use per­so­nal pro­files, when per­so­nal data of vul­nerable natu­ral per­sons, in par­ti­cu­lar data of child­ren, are pro­ce­s­sed, or when the pro­ce­s­sing invol­ves a lar­ge amount of per­so­nal data and a lar­ge num­ber of data subjects.
(76) The likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty of the risk to the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject should be deter­mi­ned in rela­ti­on to the natu­re, scope, cir­cum­stances and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing. The risk should be asses­sed on the basis of an objec­ti­ve eva­lua­ti­on deter­mi­ning whe­ther the data pro­ce­s­sing pres­ents a risk or a high risk.
(77) Gui­dance on how the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor is to imple­ment appro­pria­te mea­su­res and how to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the requi­re­ments, in par­ti­cu­lar as regards the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of the risk asso­cia­ted with the pro­ce­s­sing, its assess­ment in terms of cau­se, natu­re, likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty, and the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of best prac­ti­ces for its miti­ga­ti­on, could be pro­vi­ded in par­ti­cu­lar in the form of appro­ved codes of con­duct, appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res, gui­dance issued by the Board or advice from a data pro­tec­tion offi­cer. The Board may also issue gui­dance on pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons that are not con­side­red to pre­sent a high risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons and indi­ca­te which miti­ga­ti­on mea­su­res may be suf­fi­ci­ent in such cases.

Artic­le 25 Data pro­tec­tion by design and by default Pri­va­cy by design Pri­va­cy by default

(1. Taking into account the sta­te of the art, the costs of imple­men­ta­ti­on and the natu­re, scope, con­text and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, as well as the vary­ing likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty of the risks to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons repre­sen­ted by the pro­ce­s­sing, the con­trol­ler shall imple­ment appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res – such as pseud­ony­mizati­on – both at the time of the deter­mi­na­ti­on of the means for the pro­ce­s­sing and at the time of the pro­ce­s­sing its­elf. such as pseud­ony­mizati­on – desi­gned to effec­tively imple­ment data pro­tec­tion prin­ci­ples such as data mini­mizati­on and to incor­po­ra­te the neces­sa­ry safe­guards in the pro­ce­s­sing in order to meet the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on and to pro­tect the rights of data subjects.
(2) The con­trol­ler shall take appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re that, by default, only per­so­nal data who­se pro­ce­s­sing is neces­sa­ry for the respec­ti­ve spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing pur­po­se are pro­ce­s­sed in prin­ci­ple. This obli­ga­ti­on shall app­ly to the amount of per­so­nal data coll­ec­ted, the scope of their pro­ce­s­sing, their sto­rage peri­od and their acce­s­si­bi­li­ty. In par­ti­cu­lar, such mea­su­res must ensu­re that per­so­nal data are not made acce­s­si­ble to an inde­fi­ni­te num­ber of natu­ral per­sons through default set­tings wit­hout the inter­ven­ti­on of the individual.
(3) An appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42 may be used as a fac­tor to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the requi­re­ments refer­red to in para­graphs (1) and (2) of this Article.
Reci­tals
(78) In order to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, it is neces­sa­ry that appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­ni­sa­tio­nal mea­su­res are taken to ensu­re com­pli­ance with the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on. In order to be able to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, the con­trol­ler should estab­lish inter­nal poli­ci­es and imple­ment mea­su­res that com­ply, in par­ti­cu­lar, with the prin­ci­ples of data pro­tec­tion by design and data pro­tec­tion by default. Such mea­su­res could include mini­mi­zing the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, pseud­ony­mi­zing per­so­nal data as soon as pos­si­ble, pro­vi­ding trans­pa­ren­cy regar­ding the func­tions and pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, enab­ling the data sub­ject to moni­tor the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, and enab­ling the con­trol­ler to crea­te and impro­ve secu­ri­ty fea­tures. With regard to the deve­lo­p­ment, design, sel­ec­tion and use of appli­ca­ti­ons, ser­vices and pro­ducts that eit­her rely on the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data or pro­cess per­so­nal data to per­form their tasks, the pro­du­cers of the pro­ducts, ser­vices and appli­ca­ti­ons should be encou­ra­ged to take into account the right to data pro­tec­tion in the deve­lo­p­ment and design of the pro­ducts, ser­vices and appli­ca­ti­ons and to ensu­re, with due regard to the sta­te of the art, that con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors are able to com­ply with their data pro­tec­tion obli­ga­ti­ons. The prin­ci­ples of data pro­tec­tion by design and by default should also be taken into account in public tenders.

Artic­le 26 Joint controllers

(1) If two or more con­trol­lers joint­ly deter­mi­ne the pur­po­ses of and means for pro­ce­s­sing, they shall be joint con­trol­lers. They shall spe­ci­fy in an agree­ment in a trans­pa­rent man­ner which of them ful­fills which obli­ga­ti­on under this Regu­la­ti­on, in par­ti­cu­lar as regards the exer­cise of the rights of the data sub­ject, and which of them ful­fills which infor­ma­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons under Artic­les 13 and 14, unless and inso­far as the respec­ti­ve tasks of the con­trol­lers are laid down by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law to which the con­trol­lers are sub­ject. The agree­ment may spe­ci­fy a cont­act point for the data subjects.
(2) The agree­ment refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall duly reflect the respec­ti­ve actu­al func­tions and rela­ti­ons of the joint­ly respon­si­ble per­sons towards data sub­jects. The essen­ti­al of the agree­ment shall be made available to the data subject.
(Not­wi­th­stan­ding the details of the agree­ment refer­red to in para­graph 1, the data sub­ject may exer­cise his or her rights under this Regu­la­ti­on with and against each of the controllers.
Reci­tals
(79) In order to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects and with regard to the respon­si­bi­li­ty and lia­bi­li­ty of con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors, the­re is a need for a clear allo­ca­ti­on of respon­si­bi­li­ties by this Regu­la­ti­on, inclu­ding whe­re a con­trol­ler deter­mi­nes the pur­po­ses and means of pro­ce­s­sing joint­ly with other con­trol­lers or whe­re a pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on is car­ri­ed out on behalf of a con­trol­ler, also with a view to inclu­ding gf the moni­to­ring and other mea­su­res of super­vi­so­ry authorities.

Artic­le 27 Repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors not estab­lished in the Union

In the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 3(2), the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall desi­gna­te in wri­ting a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve in the Union.
(2) The obli­ga­ti­on under para­graph 1 of this Artic­le shall not app­ly to
a) pro­ce­s­sing which is occa­sio­nal does not invol­ve the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of data on a lar­ge sca­le within the mea­ning of Artic­le 9(1) or the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces on a lar­ge sca­le within the mea­ning of Artic­le 10 and is not likely to result in a risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, taking into account the natu­re, cir­cum­stances, scope and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing; or
b) Aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies.
(3) The repre­sen­ta­ti­ve must be estab­lished in one of the Mem­ber Sta­tes whe­re the data sub­jects who­se per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed in con­nec­tion with the goods or ser­vices offe­red to them or who­se beha­vi­or is moni­to­red are located.
(4) The repre­sen­ta­ti­ve shall be appoin­ted by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to ser­ve, in addi­ti­on to or in place of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, as a point of cont­act in par­ti­cu­lar for super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and data sub­jects on all issues rela­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing to ensu­re com­pli­ance with this Regulation.
(5) The appoint­ment of a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall be wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to any legal action against the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor itself.
Reci­tals
(80) Any con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor not estab­lished in the Uni­on who­se pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties rela­te to data sub­jects pre­sent in the Uni­on and are inten­ded to offer goods or ser­vices to such data sub­jects in the Uni­on, whe­ther or not payment is requi­red from the data sub­ject, or to moni­tor their beha­viour whe­re it takes place within the Uni­on, should be requi­red to desi­gna­te a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve, unless, the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out on an occa­sio­nal basis, does not invol­ve the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data on a lar­ge sca­le or the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces, and is unli­kely to result in a risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons having regard to its natu­re, cir­cum­stances, scope and pur­po­ses, or the con­trol­ler is a public aut­ho­ri­ty or body. The repre­sen­ta­ti­ve should act on behalf of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and ser­ve as a point of cont­act for super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should express­ly appoint and aut­ho­ri­ze in wri­ting the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve to act in its stead with respect to the obli­ga­ti­ons incum­bent on it under this Regu­la­ti­on. The appoint­ment of such a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve does not affect the respon­si­bi­li­ty or lia­bi­li­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor under this Regu­la­ti­on. Such repre­sen­ta­ti­ve should per­form his or her tasks in accordance with the man­da­te of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and, in par­ti­cu­lar, coope­ra­te with the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties with regard to mea­su­res to ensu­re com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on. In the event of brea­ches by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, the appoin­ted repre­sen­ta­ti­ve should be sub­ject to enforce­ment procedures.

Artic­le 28 Processor

(Whe­re pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out on behalf of a con­trol­ler, the con­trol­ler shall only work with pro­ces­sors pro­vi­ding suf­fi­ci­ent gua­ran­tees that appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res will be imple­men­ted in such a way that the pro­ce­s­sing will be car­ri­ed out in com­pli­ance with the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on and will ensu­re the pro­tec­tion of the rights of the data subject.
(2) The Pro­ces­sor shall not use any other Pro­ces­sor wit­hout the pri­or sepa­ra­te or gene­ral writ­ten con­sent of the Con­trol­ler. In the case of gene­ral writ­ten appr­oval, the Pro­ces­sor shall always inform the Con­trol­ler of any inten­ded chan­ge regar­ding the use or sub­sti­tu­ti­on of other Pro­ces­sors, giving the Con­trol­ler the oppor­tu­ni­ty to object to such changes.
(Pro­ce­s­sing by a pro­ces­sor shall be car­ri­ed out on the basis of a con­tract or other legal instru­ment under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law which binds the pro­ces­sor in rela­ti­on to the con­trol­ler and which spe­ci­fi­es the sub­ject-mat­ter and dura­ti­on of the pro­ce­s­sing, the natu­re and pur­po­se of the pro­ce­s­sing, the type of per­so­nal data, the cate­go­ries of data sub­jects and the obli­ga­ti­ons and rights of the con­trol­ler. Such con­tract or other legal instru­ment shall pro­vi­de, in par­ti­cu­lar, that the Pro­ces­sor shall.
a) pro­ce­s­ses the per­so­nal data only on the docu­men­ted ins­truc­tions of the con­trol­ler – inclu­ding in rela­ti­on to the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on – unless requi­red to do so by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law to which the pro­ces­sor is sub­ject; in such a case, the pro­ces­sor shall noti­fy the con­trol­ler of such legal requi­re­ments pri­or to the pro­ce­s­sing, unless the law in que­sti­on pro­hi­bits such noti­fi­ca­ti­on on grounds of important public interest;
b) ensu­res that the per­sons aut­ho­ri­zed to pro­cess the per­so­nal data have com­mit­ted them­sel­ves to con­fi­den­tia­li­ty or are sub­ject to an appro­pria­te legal duty of confidentiality;
c) takes all neces­sa­ry mea­su­res in accordance with Artic­le 32;
d) com­plies with the con­di­ti­ons refer­red to in para­graphs 2 and 4 for the use of the ser­vices of ano­ther processor;
e) in view of the natu­re of the pro­ce­s­sing, assists the con­trol­ler, whe­re pos­si­ble, with appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to com­ply with its obli­ga­ti­on to respond to requests to exer­cise the rights of the data sub­ject refer­red to in Chap­ter III;
f) taking into account the natu­re of the pro­ce­s­sing and the infor­ma­ti­on at its dis­po­sal, assists the con­trol­ler in com­ply­ing with the obli­ga­ti­ons refer­red to in Artic­les 32 to 36; g) upon com­ple­ti­on of the pro­vi­si­on of the pro­ce­s­sing ser­vices, eit­her era­ses or returns all per­so­nal data at the choice of the con­trol­ler and dele­tes the exi­sting copies, unless the­re is an obli­ga­ti­on to store the per­so­nal data under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law;
h) pro­vi­des the respon­si­ble par­ty with all neces­sa­ry infor­ma­ti­on to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the obli­ga­ti­ons set forth in this Artic­le and allo­ws and con­tri­bu­tes to veri­fi­ca­ti­ons, inclu­ding inspec­tions, con­duc­ted by the respon­si­ble par­ty or ano­ther audi­tor appoin­ted by the respon­si­ble party.
With regard to point (h) of the first sub­pa­ra­graph, the pro­ces­sor shall inform the con­trol­ler wit­hout undue delay if it con­siders that an ins­truc­tion inf­rin­ges this Regu­la­ti­on or other Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te data pro­tec­tion pro­vi­si­ons.
(4. Whe­re the pro­ces­sor uses the ser­vices of ano­ther pro­ces­sor to car­ry out cer­tain pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties on behalf of the con­trol­ler, the same data pro­tec­tion obli­ga­ti­ons as tho­se laid down in the con­tract or other legal instru­ment bet­ween the con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor refer­red to in para­graph 3 shall be impo­sed on that other pro­ces­sor by way of a con­tract or other legal instru­ment in accordance with Uni­on law or the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned, in par­ti­cu­lar pro­vi­ding suf­fi­ci­ent gua­ran­tees that the appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res will be imple­men­ted in such a way that the pro­ce­s­sing will be car­ri­ed out in accordance with the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on. If the fur­ther pro­ces­sor fails to com­ply with its data pro­tec­tion obli­ga­ti­ons, the first pro­ces­sor shall be lia­ble to the con­trol­ler for com­pli­ance with the obli­ga­ti­ons of that other processor.
(5. Com­pli­ance by a pro­ces­sor with appro­ved codes of con­duct pur­su­ant to Artic­le 40 or with an appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42 may be used as a fac­tor to demon­stra­te suf­fi­ci­ent gua­ran­tees within the mea­ning of para­graphs 1 and 4 of this Article.
(6. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to an indi­vi­du­al con­tract bet­ween the con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor, the con­tract or other legal instru­ment refer­red to in para­graphs 3 and 4 of this Artic­le may be based, in who­le or in part, on the stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses refer­red to in para­graphs 7 and 8 of this Artic­le, even if they are part of a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on gran­ted to the con­trol­ler or the pro­ces­sor pur­su­ant to Artic­les 42 and 43.
7. The Com­mis­si­on may, in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 87(2), adopt stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses to address the issues refer­red to in para­graphs 3 and 4 of this Article.
(8. A super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may, in accordance with the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism refer­red to in Artic­le 63, estab­lish stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses to address the issues refer­red to in para­graphs 3 and 4 of this Article.
(9) The con­tract or other legal instru­ment refer­red to in para­graphs 3 and 4 shall be in wri­ting, which may also be in an elec­tro­nic format.
(10. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to Artic­les 82, 83 and 84, a pro­ces­sor who deter­mi­nes the pur­po­ses and means of pro­ce­s­sing in breach of this Regu­la­ti­on shall be dee­med to be a con­trol­ler in rela­ti­on to that processing.
Reci­tals
(81) In order to com­ply with the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing to be car­ri­ed out by the pro­ces­sor on behalf of the con­trol­ler, a con­trol­ler inten­ding to ent­rust pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties to a pro­ces­sor should only use pro­ces­sors pro­vi­ding suf­fi­ci­ent gua­ran­tees, in par­ti­cu­lar in terms of exper­ti­se, relia­bi­li­ty and resour­ces, that tech­ni­cal and orga­ni­sa­tio­nal mea­su­res, inclu­ding for the secu­ri­ty of the pro­ce­s­sing, will be imple­men­ted in com­pli­ance with the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on. A processor’s com­pli­ance with appro­ved codes of con­duct or an appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re may be used as a fac­tor to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the controller’s obli­ga­ti­ons. Pro­ce­s­sing by a pro­ces­sor should be car­ri­ed out on the basis of a con­tract or other legal instru­ment under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law bin­ding the pro­ces­sor to the con­trol­ler and spe­ci­fy­ing the sub­ject-mat­ter and dura­ti­on of the pro­ce­s­sing, the natu­re and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, the type of per­so­nal data and the cate­go­ries of data sub­jects, taking into account the spe­ci­fic tasks and obli­ga­ti­ons of the pro­ces­sor in the pro­ce­s­sing envi­sa­ged and the risk to the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject. The con­trol­ler and pro­ces­sor may deci­de to use an indi­vi­du­al con­tract or stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses, eit­her adopted direct­ly by the Com­mis­si­on or adopted by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty after the con­si­sten­cy pro­ce­du­re and then adopted by the Com­mis­si­on. Upon ter­mi­na­ti­on of the pro­ce­s­sing on behalf of the con­trol­ler, the pro­ces­sor should, at the choice of the con­trol­ler, eit­her return or era­se the per­so­nal data, unless the­re is an obli­ga­ti­on to retain the per­so­nal data under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law to which the pro­ces­sor is subject.
(95) Whe­re neces­sa­ry, the pro­ces­sor should assist the con­trol­ler, upon request, in ensu­ring com­pli­ance with the obli­ga­ti­ons resul­ting from the per­for­mance of the data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment and the pri­or con­sul­ta­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry authority.

Artic­le 29 Pro­ce­s­sing under the super­vi­si­on of the con­trol­ler or processor

The pro­ces­sor and any per­son sub­or­di­na­te to the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor who has access to per­so­nal data may pro­cess such data only on the ins­truc­tions of the con­trol­ler, unless they are obli­ged to pro­cess under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law. 

Artic­le 30 Direc­to­ry of pro­ce­s­sing activities

(1) Each con­trol­ler and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, its repre­sen­ta­ti­ve shall keep a regi­ster of all pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties under its respon­si­bi­li­ty. This regi­ster shall con­tain all of the fol­lo­wing information:
a) the name and cont­act details of the con­trol­ler and, if appli­ca­ble, of the per­son joint­ly respon­si­ble with him/her, of the controller’s repre­sen­ta­ti­ve and of any data pro­tec­tion officer;
b) the pur­po­ses of the processing;
c) a descrip­ti­on of the cate­go­ries of data sub­jects and the cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data;
d) the cate­go­ries of reci­pi­en­ts to whom the per­so­nal data have been or will be dis­c­lo­sed, inclu­ding reci­pi­en­ts in third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal organizations;
e) whe­re appli­ca­ble, trans­fers of per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or to an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, inclu­ding an indi­ca­ti­on of the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned and, in the case of trans­fers refer­red to in the second sub­pa­ra­graph of Artic­le 49(1), docu­men­ta­ti­on of appro­pria­te safeguards;
f) if pos­si­ble, the fore­seen dead­lines for the dele­ti­on of the dif­fe­rent cate­go­ries of data;
g) if pos­si­ble, a gene­ral descrip­ti­on of the tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res refer­red to in Artic­le 32(1).
(Each pro­ces­sor and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, its repre­sen­ta­ti­ve shall keep a regi­ster of all cate­go­ries of pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties car­ri­ed out on behalf of a con­trol­ler, which shall include:
a) the name and cont­act details of the pro­ces­sor or pro­ces­sors and of any con­trol­ler on who­se behalf the pro­ces­sor is acting and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, of the controller’s or processor’s repre­sen­ta­ti­ve and of any data pro­tec­tion officer;
b) the cate­go­ries of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out on behalf of each controller;
c) whe­re appli­ca­ble, trans­fers of per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or to an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, inclu­ding an indi­ca­ti­on of the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned and, in the case of trans­fers refer­red to in the second sub­pa­ra­graph of Artic­le 49(1), docu­men­ta­ti­on of appro­pria­te safeguards;
d) if pos­si­ble, a gene­ral descrip­ti­on of the tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res refer­red to in Artic­le 32(1).
(3) The regi­ster refer­red to in para­graphs 1 and 2 shall be kept in wri­ting, which may also be in an elec­tro­nic format.
(4) The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and, if appli­ca­ble, the controller’s or processor’s repre­sen­ta­ti­ve shall make the list available to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty upon request.
The obli­ga­ti­ons refer­red to in para­graphs 1 and 2 shall not app­ly to under­ta­kings or bodies employing fewer than 250 staff, unless the pro­ce­s­sing they car­ry out invol­ves a risk to the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects, the pro­ce­s­sing is not occa­sio­nal or invol­ves the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of data refer­red to in Artic­le 9(1) or the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces refer­red to in Artic­le 10.
Reci­tals
(82) In order to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should keep a regi­ster of the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties under its respon­si­bi­li­ty. Each con­trol­ler and pro­ces­sor should be obli­ged to coope­ra­te with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and to pro­vi­de it, upon request, with the rele­vant regi­ster so that the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons con­cer­ned can be checked against tho­se registers.

Artic­le 31 Coope­ra­ti­on with the super­vi­so­ry authority

The Con­trol­ler and Pro­ces­sor and, if appli­ca­ble, their repre­sen­ta­ti­ves shall coope­ra­te with the Super­vi­so­ry Aut­ho­ri­ty in the per­for­mance of their duties upon request. 

Sec­tion 2 Secu­ri­ty of per­so­nal data

Artic­le 32 Secu­ri­ty of processing

(1. Taking into account the sta­te of the art, the costs of imple­men­ta­ti­on and the natu­re, scope, con­text and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, as well as the vary­ing likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty of the risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, the con­trol­ler and pro­ces­sor shall imple­ment appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re a level of secu­ri­ty appro­pria­te to the risk, inclu­ding, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the following:
a) the pseud­ony­mizati­on and encryp­ti­on of per­so­nal data;
b) the abili­ty to ensu­re the con­fi­den­tia­li­ty, inte­gri­ty, avai­la­bi­li­ty and resi­li­ence of the systems and ser­vices rela­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing on a per­ma­nent basis;
c) the abili­ty to quick­ly resto­re the avai­la­bi­li­ty of and access to per­so­nal data in the event of a phy­si­cal or tech­ni­cal incident;
d) a pro­ce­du­re for peri­odic review, assess­ment and eva­lua­ti­on of the effec­ti­ve­ness of tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to ensu­re the secu­ri­ty of processing.
(2. The assess­ment of the ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion shall take into account, in par­ti­cu­lar, the risks posed by the pro­ce­s­sing, in par­ti­cu­lar by the des­truc­tion, loss, altera­ti­on or unaut­ho­ri­zed dis­clo­sure of, or access to, per­so­nal data trans­mit­ted, stored or other­wi­se pro­ce­s­sed, whe­ther acci­den­tal or unlawful.
(3) Com­pli­ance with appro­ved rules of con­duct pur­su­ant to Artic­le 40 or an appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42 may be used as a fac­tor to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the requi­re­ments refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Article.
(4. The con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor shall take steps to ensu­re that natu­ral per­sons under their aut­ho­ri­ty who have access to per­so­nal data pro­cess them only on ins­truc­tions from the con­trol­ler, unless they are obli­ged to pro­cess them under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law.
Reci­tals
(83) In order to main­tain secu­ri­ty and to pre­vent pro­ce­s­sing in breach of this Regu­la­ti­on, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should iden­ti­fy the risks inher­ent in the pro­ce­s­sing and imple­ment mea­su­res to miti­ga­te them, such as encryp­ti­on. The­se mea­su­res should ensu­re a level of pro­tec­tion, inclu­ding con­fi­den­tia­li­ty, appro­pria­te to the risks repre­sen­ted by the pro­ce­s­sing and the natu­re of the per­so­nal data to be pro­tec­ted, taking into account the sta­te of the art and the costs of imple­men­ta­ti­on. The data secu­ri­ty risk assess­ment should take into account the risks asso­cia­ted with the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, such as, whe­ther acci­den­tal or unlawful, des­truc­tion, loss, altera­ti­on or unaut­ho­ri­zed dis­clo­sure of, or access to, per­so­nal data trans­mit­ted, stored or other­wi­se pro­ce­s­sed, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re this could result in phy­si­cal, mate­ri­al or non-mate­ri­al damage.

Artic­le 33 Noti­fi­ca­ti­on of per­so­nal data brea­ches to the super­vi­so­ry authority

(In the event of a per­so­nal data breach, the con­trol­ler shall, wit­hout undue delay and, whe­re pos­si­ble, within 72 hours of beco­ming awa­re of the breach, noti­fy it to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty respon­si­ble pur­su­ant to Artic­le 51, unless the per­so­nal data breach is unli­kely to result in a risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons. If the noti­fi­ca­ti­on to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is not made within 72 hours, it shall be accom­pa­nied by a justi­fi­ca­ti­on for the delay.
(2) If the Pro­ces­sor beco­mes awa­re of a per­so­nal data breach, it shall noti­fy the Con­trol­ler the­reof wit­hout undue delay.
(3) The noti­fi­ca­ti­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall con­tain at least the fol­lo­wing information:
a) A descrip­ti­on of the natu­re of the per­so­nal data breach, inclu­ding, to the ext­ent pos­si­ble, the cate­go­ries and appro­xi­ma­te num­ber of indi­vi­du­als affec­ted, the cate­go­ries affec­ted, and the appro­xi­ma­te num­ber of per­so­nal data records affected;
b) the name and cont­act details of the data pro­tec­tion offi­cer or other point of cont­act for fur­ther information;
c) a descrip­ti­on of the likely con­se­quen­ces of the per­so­nal data breach;
d) A descrip­ti­on of the mea­su­res taken or pro­po­sed by the data con­trol­ler to address the per­so­nal data breach and, whe­re appro­pria­te, mea­su­res to miti­ga­te its poten­ti­al adver­se effects.
(4) If and to the ext­ent that the infor­ma­ti­on can­not be pro­vi­ded at the same time, the respon­si­ble par­ty may pro­vi­de such infor­ma­ti­on incre­men­tal­ly wit­hout unre­a­sonable fur­ther delay.
(5) The Con­trol­ler shall docu­ment per­so­nal data brea­ches, inclu­ding all facts rela­ted to the per­so­nal data breach, its effects and the reme­di­al actions taken. This docu­men­ta­ti­on shall enable the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to veri­fy com­pli­ance with the pro­vi­si­ons of this Article.
Reci­tals
(85) A per­so­nal data breach, if not addres­sed in a time­ly and appro­pria­te man­ner, may result in phy­si­cal, mate­ri­al or non-mate­ri­al harm to natu­ral per­sons, such as loss of con­trol over their per­so­nal data or limi­ta­ti­on of their rights, dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on, iden­ti­ty theft or fraud, finan­cial loss, unaut­ho­ri­zed rem­oval of pseud­ony­mizati­on, dama­ge to repu­ta­ti­on, loss of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty of data sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy, or other signi­fi­cant eco­no­mic or social harm to the natu­ral per­son con­cer­ned. The­r­e­fo­re, as soon as the con­trol­ler beco­mes awa­re of a per­so­nal data breach, it should noti­fy the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the per­so­nal data breach wit­hout undue delay and, if pos­si­ble, within no more than 72 hours of beco­ming awa­re of the breach, unless the con­trol­ler can demon­stra­te, in accordance with the accoun­ta­bi­li­ty prin­ci­ple, that the per­so­nal data breach is unli­kely to result in a risk to the per­so­nal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons. If this noti­fi­ca­ti­on can­not be pro­vi­ded within 72 hours, it should be requi­red to spe­ci­fy the rea­sons for the delay and the infor­ma­ti­on can be pro­vi­ded pro­gres­si­ve­ly wit­hout unre­a­sonable fur­ther delay.
(88) Detail­ed rules gover­ning the for­mat and pro­ce­du­res for the noti­fi­ca­ti­on of per­so­nal data brea­ches should take suf­fi­ci­ent account of the cir­cum­stances of the breach, such as whe­ther per­so­nal data was pro­tec­ted by appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal safe­guards that effec­tively redu­ce the likeli­hood of iden­ti­ty fraud or other forms of data misu­se. Moreo­ver, such rules and pro­ce­du­res should take into account the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of law enforce­ment in cases whe­re ear­ly dis­clo­sure would unneces­s­a­ri­ly impe­de the inve­sti­ga­ti­on of the cir­cum­stances sur­roun­ding a per­so­nal data breach.

Artic­le 34 Noti­fi­ca­ti­on to the data sub­ject of a per­so­nal data breach

(1) If the per­so­nal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the per­so­nal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, the con­trol­ler shall noti­fy the data sub­ject of the breach wit­hout undue delay.
The noti­fi­ca­ti­on to the data sub­ject refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall descri­be in clear and plain lan­guage the natu­re of the per­so­nal data breach and shall include at least the infor­ma­ti­on and mea­su­res refer­red to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Artic­le 33(3).
(3) Noti­fi­ca­ti­on to the data sub­ject under para­graph (1) is not requi­red if any of the fol­lo­wing con­di­ti­ons are met:
a) the con­trol­ler has imple­men­ted appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal secu­ri­ty mea­su­res and the­se mea­su­res have been applied to the per­so­nal data affec­ted by the breach, in par­ti­cu­lar tho­se that make the per­so­nal data inac­ce­s­si­ble to all per­sons who are not aut­ho­ri­zed to access the per­so­nal data, such as through encryption;
b) the con­trol­ler has ensu­red by sub­se­quent mea­su­res that the high risk to the rights and free­doms of the data sub­jects refer­red to in para­graph 1 is no lon­ger likely to exist;
c) the noti­fi­ca­ti­on would invol­ve a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort. In this case, a public announce­ment or a simi­lar mea­su­re must be made instead, by which the per­sons affec­ted are infor­med in a com­pa­ra­b­ly effec­ti­ve manner.
(4) If the data con­trol­ler has not alre­a­dy noti­fi­ed the data sub­ject of the per­so­nal data breach, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, taking into account the likeli­hood that the per­so­nal data breach will result in a high risk, may requi­re the data con­trol­ler to do so, or may deter­mi­ne by means of a decis­i­on that cer­tain of the con­di­ti­ons refer­red to in para­graph 3 are met.
Reci­tals
(86) The con­trol­ler should noti­fy the data sub­ject of the per­so­nal data breach wit­hout undue delay whe­re the per­so­nal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the per­so­nal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, in order to enable them to take the neces­sa­ry pre­cau­ti­ons. The noti­fi­ca­ti­on should include a descrip­ti­on of the natu­re of the per­so­nal data breach and recom­men­da­ti­ons addres­sed to the natu­ral per­son con­cer­ned to miti­ga­te any adver­se effects of that breach. Such noti­fi­ca­ti­ons to the data sub­ject should always be made as soon as rea­son­ab­ly prac­ti­ca­ble, in clo­se con­sul­ta­ti­on with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and in accordance with any ins­truc­tions given by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or other com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties, such as law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties. For exam­p­le, to be able to miti­ga­te the risk of imme­dia­te harm, data sub­jects would need to be noti­fi­ed imme­dia­te­ly, whe­re­as a lon­ger noti­fi­ca­ti­on peri­od may be justi­fi­ed when the pur­po­se is to take appro­pria­te mea­su­res against ongo­ing or simi­lar per­so­nal data breaches.
(87) It should be deter­mi­ned whe­ther all appro­pria­te tech­ni­cal pro­tec­tion mea­su­res as well as orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res have been taken in order to be able to deter­mi­ne imme­dia­te­ly whe­ther a per­so­nal data breach has occur­red and to be able to noti­fy the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the data sub­ject wit­hout undue delay. In deter­mi­ning whe­ther noti­fi­ca­ti­on has been made wit­hout undue delay, con­side­ra­ti­on should be given to the natu­re and gra­vi­ty of the per­so­nal data breach and its con­se­quen­ces and adver­se effects for the data sub­ject. The appro­pria­te noti­fi­ca­ti­on may result in action by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in accordance with its duties and powers set forth in this Regulation.

Sec­tion 3 Data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment and pri­or consultation

Artic­le 35 Data pro­tec­tion impact assessment

(Whe­re a form of pro­ce­s­sing, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re new tech­no­lo­gies are used, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons by vir­tue of the natu­re, scope, con­text and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, the con­trol­ler shall con­duct a pri­or assess­ment of the impact of the envi­sa­ged pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons on the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data. A sin­gle assess­ment may be car­ri­ed out to exami­ne seve­ral simi­lar pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons with simi­lar high risks.
(2) The con­trol­ler shall seek the advice of the data pro­tec­tion offi­cer, if one has been appoin­ted, when con­duc­ting a data pro­tec­tion impact assessment.
(3) A data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment pur­su­ant to para­graph 1 shall be requi­red in par­ti­cu­lar in the fol­lo­wing cases:
a) syste­ma­tic and com­pre­hen­si­ve assess­ment of per­so­nal aspects rela­ting to natu­ral per­sons which is based on auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, and which in turn ser­ves as a basis for decis­i­ons which pro­du­ce legal effects con­cer­ning natu­ral per­sons or simi­lar­ly signi­fi­cant­ly affect them;
b) exten­si­ve pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data pur­su­ant to Artic­le 9(1) or of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces pur­su­ant to Artic­le 10; or
c) syste­ma­tic exten­si­ve moni­to­ring of publicly acce­s­si­ble areas.
(The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall draw up and make public a list of the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons for which a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment is to be car­ri­ed out pur­su­ant to para­graph 1. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall com­mu­ni­ca­te tho­se lists to the Com­mit­tee refer­red to in Artic­le 68.
(5) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may fur­ther estab­lish and publish a list of the types of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons for which a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment is not requi­red. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall com­mu­ni­ca­te the­se lists to the Board.
(Befo­re deter­mi­ning the lists refer­red to in para­graphs 4 and 5, the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall app­ly the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism refer­red to in Artic­le 63 whe­re such lists include pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties which are rela­ted to the offe­ring of goods or ser­vices to data sub­jects or the moni­to­ring of the beha­vi­or of such data sub­jects in seve­ral Mem­ber Sta­tes or which could signi­fi­cant­ly affect the free flow of per­so­nal data within the Union.
(7) At a mini­mum, the impact assess­ment shall include the following:
a) a syste­ma­tic descrip­ti­on of the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons envi­sa­ged and the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding, whe­re appro­pria­te, the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests pur­sued by the controller;
b) an assess­ment of the neces­si­ty and pro­por­tio­na­li­ty of the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons in rela­ti­on to the purpose;
c) an assess­ment of the risks to the rights and free­doms of the data sub­jects refer­red to in para­graph 1; and
d) the miti­ga­ting mea­su­res envi­sa­ged to address the risks, inclu­ding safe­guards, secu­ri­ty mea­su­res and pro­ce­du­res ensu­ring the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data and demon­st­ra­ting com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account the rights and legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of data sub­jects and other data subjects.
(8. Com­pli­ance with appro­ved codes of con­duct refer­red to in Artic­le 40 by the respon­si­ble con­trol­lers or the respon­si­ble pro­ces­sors shall be duly taken into account when asses­sing the impact of the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out by them, in par­ti­cu­lar for the pur­po­ses of a data pro­tec­tion impact assessment.
(9. The con­trol­ler shall, whe­re appro­pria­te, seek the views of data sub­jects or their repre­sen­ta­ti­ves on the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the pro­tec­tion of com­mer­cial or public inte­rests or the secu­ri­ty of pro­ce­s­sing operations.
10. Whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing refer­red to in Artic­le 6(1)(c) or (e) is based on a legal basis in Uni­on law or in the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject and whe­re that legis­la­ti­on governs the spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on or ope­ra­ti­ons and a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment has alre­a­dy been car­ri­ed out in the con­text of the gene­ral impact assess­ment rela­ted to the adop­ti­on of that legal basis, para­graphs 1 to 7 shall app­ly only whe­re Mem­ber Sta­tes have the dis­creti­on to requi­re such an impact assess­ment to be car­ri­ed out pri­or to the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties concerned.
(11. Whe­re neces­sa­ry, the con­trol­ler shall con­duct a review to assess whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out in accordance with the data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment, at least whe­re the­re have been chan­ges in the risk asso­cia­ted with the pro­ce­s­sing operations.
Reci­tals
(84) In order to bet­ter com­ply with this Regu­la­ti­on in cases whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, the con­trol­ler should be respon­si­ble for car­ry­ing out a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment eva­lua­ting in par­ti­cu­lar the cau­se, natu­re, spe­ci­fi­ci­ty and seve­ri­ty of that risk. The results of the assess­ment should be taken into account when deci­ding on the appro­pria­te mea­su­res to be taken to demon­stra­te that the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data com­plies with this Regu­la­ti­on. Whe­re a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment indi­ca­tes that pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons pre­sent a high risk which the con­trol­ler can­not miti­ga­te by appro­pria­te mea­su­res in terms of available tech­no­lo­gy and imple­men­ta­ti­on costs, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be con­sul­ted pri­or to the processing.
(89) Under Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC, per­so­nal data pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons were gene­ral­ly sub­ject to noti­fi­ca­ti­on to super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. This noti­fi­ca­ti­on obli­ga­ti­on is bureau­cra­tic and finan­ci­al­ly bur­den­so­me and has nevert­hel­ess not led to bet­ter pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data in all cases. The­se indis­cri­mi­na­te gene­ral noti­fi­ca­ti­on requi­re­ments should the­r­e­fo­re be abo­lished and repla­ced by effec­ti­ve pro­ce­du­res and mecha­nisms that instead prio­ri­ti­ze tho­se types of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons that are likely to pre­sent a high risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons by vir­tue of their natu­re, their scope, their cir­cum­stances and their pur­po­ses. Such types of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons include, in par­ti­cu­lar, tho­se that invol­ve new tech­no­lo­gies or are novel and for which the con­trol­ler has not yet car­ri­ed out a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment or for which a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment has beco­me neces­sa­ry due to the time that has elap­sed sin­ce the ori­gi­nal processing.
(90) In such cases, the con­trol­ler should car­ry out a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment pri­or to the pro­ce­s­sing, eva­lua­ting the spe­ci­fic likeli­hood and seve­ri­ty of that high risk, taking into account the natu­re, scope, cir­cum­stances and pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing and the cau­ses of the risk. That impact assess­ment should address in par­ti­cu­lar the mea­su­res, safe­guards and pro­ce­du­res to miti­ga­te that risk, ensu­re the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data and demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regulation.
(91) This should app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar to lar­ge pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons which are inten­ded to pro­cess lar­ge amounts of per­so­nal data at regio­nal, natio­nal or supra­na­tio­nal level, are likely to affect a lar­ge num­ber of indi­vi­du­als and are likely to invol­ve a high risk, for exam­p­le, due to their sen­si­ti­vi­ty, and which invol­ve the wide­spread use of new tech­no­lo­gy in accordance with the sta­te of the art, as well as to other pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons which pre­sent a high risk to the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re tho­se pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons make it dif­fi­cult for data sub­jects to exer­cise their rights. A data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment should also be car­ri­ed out whe­re the per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed for the pur­po­se of taking decis­i­ons rela­ting to spe­ci­fic natu­ral per­sons fol­lo­wing a syste­ma­tic and in-depth assess­ment of per­so­nal aspects of natu­ral per­sons based on pro­fil­ing of tho­se data or fol­lo­wing the pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data, bio­me­tric data or data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and offen­ces and rela­ted secu­ri­ty mea­su­res. Simi­lar­ly, a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment is requi­red for wide-area moni­to­ring of publicly acce­s­si­ble are­as, in par­ti­cu­lar by means of opto­elec­tro­nic devices, or for any other ope­ra­ti­on whe­re, in the opi­ni­on of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the pro­ce­s­sing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects, in par­ti­cu­lar becau­se it pre­vents data sub­jects from exer­cis­ing a right or using a ser­vice or per­forming a con­tract, or becau­se it is car­ri­ed out on a lar­ge sca­le on a syste­ma­tic basis. The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data should not be con­side­red to be on a lar­ge sca­le if the pro­ce­s­sing con­cerns per­so­nal data of pati­ents or of cli­ents and is car­ri­ed out by an indi­vi­du­al doc­tor, other health pro­fes­sio­nal or lawy­er. In the­se cases, a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment should not be mandatory.
(92) In cer­tain cir­cum­stances, it may be rea­sonable and appro­pria­te from an eco­no­mic point of view not to base a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment only on a spe­ci­fic pro­ject, but to make it broa­der in scope – for exam­p­le, when public aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies want to crea­te a com­mon appli­ca­ti­on or pro­ce­s­sing plat­form, or when seve­ral con­trol­lers want to imple­ment a com­mon appli­ca­ti­on or pro­ce­s­sing envi­ron­ment for an enti­re eco­no­mic sec­tor, for a spe­ci­fic mar­ket seg­ment, or for a wide­spread hori­zon­tal activity.
(93) On the occa­si­on of the adop­ti­on of the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te on the basis of which the public aut­ho­ri­ty or body per­forms its tasks and which regu­la­tes the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on or types of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons in que­sti­on, Mem­ber Sta­tes may deem it neces­sa­ry to car­ry out such impact assess­ments pri­or to the pro­ce­s­sing operations.

Artic­le 36 Pre­vious consultation

(1) The con­trol­ler shall con­sult the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pri­or to the pro­ce­s­sing if a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment pur­su­ant to Artic­le 35 indi­ca­tes that the pro­ce­s­sing would result in a high risk, unless the con­trol­ler takes mea­su­res to miti­ga­te the risk.
(If the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­siders that the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing refer­red to in para­graph 1 would not be in com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, in par­ti­cu­lar becau­se the con­trol­ler has not suf­fi­ci­ent­ly iden­ti­fi­ed or miti­ga­ted the risk, it shall make appro­pria­te writ­ten recom­men­da­ti­ons to the con­trol­ler and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, to the pro­ces­sor within a peri­od of up to eight weeks after rece­ipt of the request for con­sul­ta­ti­on and may exer­cise its powers refer­red to in Artic­le 58. 2 This peri­od may be exten­ded by six weeks, taking into account the com­ple­xi­ty of the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing. 3 The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall inform the con­trol­ler or, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the pro­ces­sor of any such exten­si­on of time limits within one month of rece­ipt of the request for con­sul­ta­ti­on, tog­e­ther with the rea­sons for the delay. 4 Such time limits may be sus­pen­ded until the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has recei­ved the infor­ma­ti­on reque­sted for the pur­po­ses of the consultation.
(3) The con­trol­ler shall pro­vi­de the fol­lo­wing infor­ma­ti­on to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty during a con­sul­ta­ti­on pur­su­ant to para­graph 1:
a) whe­re appli­ca­ble, infor­ma­ti­on on the respec­ti­ve respon­si­bi­li­ties of the con­trol­ler, the joint con­trol­lers and the pro­ces­sors invol­ved in the pro­ce­s­sing, in par­ti­cu­lar in the case of pro­ce­s­sing within a group of companies;
b) the pur­po­ses and means of the inten­ded processing;
c) the mea­su­res and safe­guards pro­vi­ded for the pro­tec­tion of the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects under this Regulation;
d) if appli­ca­ble, the cont­act details of the data pro­tec­tion officer;
e) the data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment pur­su­ant to Artic­le 35, and
f) any other infor­ma­ti­on reque­sted by the super­vi­so­ry authority.
(4. Mem­ber Sta­tes shall con­sult the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty when pre­pa­ring a pro­po­sal for legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­res to be adopted by a natio­nal par­lia­ment or regu­la­to­ry mea­su­res based on such legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­res which rela­te to processing.
(5. Not­wi­th­stan­ding para­graph 1, con­trol­lers may be requi­red by Mem­ber Sta­te law to con­sult the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and obtain its pri­or aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on when pro­ce­s­sing for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest, inclu­ding pro­ce­s­sing for social secu­ri­ty and public health purposes.
Reci­tals
(94) Whe­re a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment indi­ca­tes that the pro­ce­s­sing would result in a high risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons in the absence of safe­guards, secu­ri­ty mea­su­res and mecha­nisms to miti­ga­te the risk, and the con­trol­ler con­siders that the risk can­not be miti­ga­ted by means that are rea­sonable in terms of available tech­no­lo­gies and imple­men­ta­ti­on costs, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be con­sul­ted pri­or to the start of the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties. Such high risk is likely to be asso­cia­ted with cer­tain types of pro­ce­s­sing and the sca­le and fre­quen­cy of pro­ce­s­sing, which may also result in dama­ge to or inter­fe­rence with per­so­nal rights and free­doms for natu­ral per­sons. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should respond to the request for advice within a cer­tain peri­od of time. Howe­ver, even if it has not respon­ded within this peri­od, it may inter­ve­ne in accordance with its tasks and powers set out in this Regu­la­ti­on, which inclu­des the power to pro­hi­bit pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons. As part of this con­sul­ta­ti­on pro­cess, the result of a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment car­ri­ed out in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data con­cer­ned may be sub­mit­ted to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar as regards the mea­su­res envi­sa­ged to miti­ga­te the risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral persons.
(96) Con­sul­ta­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should also take place during the pre­pa­ra­ti­on of legis­la­ti­ve or regu­la­to­ry mea­su­res pro­vi­ding for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, in order to ensu­re the com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty of the envi­sa­ged pro­ce­s­sing with this Regu­la­ti­on and, in par­ti­cu­lar, to miti­ga­te the risk the­reof for the data subject.

Sec­tion 4 Data Pro­tec­tion Officer

Artic­le 37 Appoint­ment of a data pro­tec­tion officer

(1) The con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor shall appoint a data pro­tec­tion offi­cer in any case if
a) the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by a public aut­ho­ri­ty or public body, with the excep­ti­on of courts, inso­far as they act within the scope of their judi­cial activities,
b) the core acti­vi­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor con­sists in car­ry­ing out pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons which, by vir­tue of their natu­re, their scope and/or their pur­po­ses, requi­re exten­si­ve regu­lar and syste­ma­tic moni­to­ring of data sub­jects, or
c) the core acti­vi­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor con­sists in the exten­si­ve pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of data pur­su­ant to Artic­le 9 or of per­so­nal data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and cri­mi­nal offen­ses pur­su­ant to Artic­le 10.
(2) A group of com­pa­nies may appoint a joint data pro­tec­tion offi­cer, pro­vi­ded that the data pro­tec­tion offi­cer can be easi­ly rea­ched from each branch.
(3) If the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor is a public aut­ho­ri­ty or public body, a joint data pro­tec­tion offi­cer may be appoin­ted for seve­ral such aut­ho­ri­ties or bodies, taking into account their orga­nizatio­nal struc­tu­re and size.
(In cases other than tho­se refer­red to in para­graph 1, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor or asso­cia­ti­ons and other uni­ons repre­sen­ting cate­go­ries of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors may, and if requi­red by Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, shall, desi­gna­te a data pro­tec­tion offi­cer. The Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer may act on behalf of such asso­cia­ti­ons and other fede­ra­ti­ons repre­sen­ting con­trol­lers or processors.
(5) The Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer shall be appoin­ted on the basis of his/her pro­fes­sio­nal qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons and, in par­ti­cu­lar, the exper­ti­se he/she pos­s­es­ses in the field of data pro­tec­tion law and prac­ti­ce, as well as his/her abili­ty to per­form the tasks refer­red to in Artic­le 39.
(6) The Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer may be an employee of the Con­trol­ler or the Pro­ces­sor or per­form his/her tasks on the basis of a ser­vice contract.
(7) The Con­trol­ler or Pro­ces­sor shall publish the cont­act details of the Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer and noti­fy the­se data to the super­vi­so­ry authority.
Reci­tals
(97) In cases whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by a public aut­ho­ri­ty, with the excep­ti­on of courts or inde­pen­dent judi­cial aut­ho­ri­ties acting in the cour­se of their judi­cial acti­vi­ties, in the pri­va­te sec­tor by a con­trol­ler who­se core acti­vi­ty con­sists of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons which requi­re regu­lar and syste­ma­tic moni­to­ring of data sub­jects on a lar­ge sca­le, or whe­re the core acti­vi­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor con­sists of lar­ge-sca­le pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data or data rela­ting to cri­mi­nal con­vic­tions and cri­mi­nal offen­ses, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should be assi­sted in moni­to­ring inter­nal com­pli­ance with the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on by ano­ther per­son with exper­ti­se in data pro­tec­tion law and pro­ce­du­res. In the pri­va­te sec­tor, the core acti­vi­ty of a con­trol­ler refers to its main acti­vi­ties and not to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data as an ancil­la­ry acti­vi­ty. The level of exper­ti­se requi­red should be based, in par­ti­cu­lar, on the data pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out and the pro­tec­tion requi­red for the per­so­nal data pro­ce­s­sed by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor. Such data pro­tec­tion offi­cers, whe­ther or not they are employees of the con­trol­ler, should be able to per­form their duties and tasks in com­ple­te independence.

Artic­le 38 Posi­ti­on of the Data Pro­tec­tion Officer

(1) The Con­trol­ler and the Pro­ces­sor shall ensu­re that the Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer is pro­per­ly invol­ved in all issues rela­ted to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data at an ear­ly stage.
(The Con­trol­ler and Pro­ces­sor shall assist the Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer in the per­for­mance of his or her duties under Artic­le 39 by pro­vi­ding the resour­ces neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of tho­se duties and access to per­so­nal data and pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons, as well as the resour­ces neces­sa­ry to main­tain his or her expertise.
(3) The con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor shall ensu­re that the data pro­tec­tion offi­cer does not recei­ve any ins­truc­tions regar­ding the per­for­mance of the­se tasks. The data pro­tec­tion offi­cer may not be dis­missed or dis­ad­van­ta­ged by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor becau­se of the per­for­mance of his/her tasks. The data pro­tec­tion offi­cer shall report direct­ly to the hig­hest manage­ment level of the con­trol­ler or processor.
(4. Data sub­jects may con­sult the Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer on any mat­ter rela­ting to the pro­ce­s­sing of their per­so­nal data and the exer­cise of their rights under this Regulation.
(5. The Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer shall be bound by sec­re­cy or con­fi­den­tia­li­ty in the per­for­mance of his or her duties under Uni­on or natio­nal law.
(6) The data pro­tec­tion offi­cer may per­form other tasks and duties. The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall ensu­re that such tasks and duties do not lead to a con­flict of interest.

Artic­le 39 Tasks of the Data Pro­tec­tion Officer

(1) The data pro­tec­tion offi­cer shall be respon­si­ble for at least the fol­lo­wing tasks:
a) informing and advi­sing the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and the employees car­ry­ing out pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons about their obli­ga­ti­ons under this Regu­la­ti­on and under other Uni­on or natio­nal data pro­tec­tion legislation;
b) Moni­to­ring com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, other Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te data pro­tec­tion legis­la­ti­on, and the controller’s or processor’s per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion poli­ci­es, inclu­ding the allo­ca­ti­on of respon­si­bi­li­ties, awa­re­ness-rai­sing and trai­ning of staff invol­ved in pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons, and reviews thereof;
c) Advice – upon request – in con­nec­tion with the data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment and moni­to­ring of its imple­men­ta­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 35;
d) Coope­ra­ti­on with the super­vi­so­ry authority;
e) Acting as a point of cont­act for the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty on mat­ters rela­ted to the pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding pri­or con­sul­ta­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 36, and advi­sing on any other mat­ters as appropriate.
(2) The Data Pro­tec­tion Offi­cer shall, in the per­for­mance of his/her duties, take due account of the risk asso­cia­ted with the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons, taking into account the natu­re, scope, cir­cum­stances and pur­po­ses of the processing.

Sec­tion 5 Rules of con­duct and certification

Artic­le 40 Rules of conduct

(Mem­ber Sta­tes, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, the Com­mit­tee and the Com­mis­si­on shall encou­ra­ge the deve­lo­p­ment of codes of con­duct to con­tri­bu­te to the pro­per appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account the spe­ci­fi­ci­ties of each pro­ce­s­sing sec­tor and the par­ti­cu­lar needs of micro, small and medi­um-sized enterprises.
(2. Asso­cia­ti­ons and other bodies repre­sen­ting cate­go­ries of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors may draw up or amend or extend codes of con­duct cla­ri­fy­ing the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, for exam­p­le on the following:
a) fair and trans­pa­rent processing;
b) the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the per­son respon­si­ble in cer­tain contexts;
c) Coll­ec­tion of per­so­nal data;
d) Pseud­ony­mizati­on of per­so­nal data;
e) Informing the public and affec­ted individuals;
f) Exer­cise of the rights of data subjects;
g) Infor­ma­ti­on and pro­tec­tion of child­ren and the man­ner in which the con­sent of the hol­der of paren­tal respon­si­bi­li­ty for the child is to be obtained;
h) the mea­su­res and pro­ce­du­res refer­red to in Artic­les 24 and 25 and the mea­su­res for the secu­ri­ty of pro­ce­s­sing refer­red to in Artic­le 32;
i) report­ing per­so­nal data brea­ches to super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and noti­fy­ing the data sub­ject of such per­so­nal data breaches;
j) the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, or
k) out-of-court pro­ce­du­res and other dis­pu­te reso­lu­ti­on pro­ce­du­res for the sett­le­ment of dis­pu­tes bet­ween con­trol­lers and data sub­jects in rela­ti­on to pro­ce­s­sing, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the rights of data sub­jects under Artic­les 77 and 79.
In addi­ti­on to com­pli­ance by con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors cover­ed by this Regu­la­ti­on, codes of con­duct appro­ved in accordance with para­graph 5 of this Artic­le and having gene­ral appli­ca­ti­on in accordance with para­graph 9 of this Artic­le may also be com­plied with by con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors not cover­ed by this Regu­la­ti­on in accordance with Artic­le 3 in order to pro­vi­de appro­pria­te safe­guards in the con­text of trans­fers of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons in accordance with Artic­le 46(2)(e). Tho­se con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors shall enter into a bin­ding and enforceable obli­ga­ti­on, by means of con­trac­tu­al or other legal­ly bin­ding instru­ments, to app­ly the appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding with respect to the rights of data subjects.
The rules of con­duct refer­red to in para­graph 2 of this Artic­le shall pro­vi­de for pro­ce­du­res enab­ling the body refer­red to in Artic­le 41(1) to car­ry out man­da­to­ry moni­to­ring of com­pli­ance with its pro­vi­si­ons by con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors who under­ta­ke to app­ly the rules of con­duct, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the tasks and powers of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent under Artic­le 55 or 56.
(5) Asso­cia­ti­ons and other asso­cia­ti­ons refer­red to in para­graph 2 of this Artic­le inten­ding to deve­lop codes of con­duct or to amend or extend exi­sting codes of con­duct shall sub­mit the draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent pur­su­ant to Artic­le 55. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall give an opi­ni­on on whe­ther the draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof is com­pa­ti­ble with this Regu­la­ti­on and shall appro­ve such draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof if it con­siders that it pro­vi­des suf­fi­ci­ent appro­pria­te safeguards.
(6. If the opi­ni­on refer­red to in para­graph 5 appro­ves the draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof and the code of con­duct in que­sti­on does not rela­te to pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties in seve­ral Mem­ber Sta­tes, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall include the code of con­duct in a list and publish it.
(7. Whe­re the draft code of con­duct rela­tes to pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties in seve­ral Mem­ber Sta­tes, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent pur­su­ant to Artic­le 55 shall, befo­re appro­ving the draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof, sub­mit it in accordance with the pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 63 to the Board, which shall give an opi­ni­on on whe­ther the draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof com­plies with this Regu­la­ti­on or, in the case refer­red to in para­graph 3 of this Artic­le, pro­vi­des for appro­pria­te safeguards.
(8. If the opi­ni­on refer­red to in para­graph 7 con­firms that the draft code of con­duct or the draft amend­ment or exten­si­on the­reof is com­pa­ti­ble with this Regu­la­ti­on or, in the case refer­red to in para­graph 3, pro­vi­des for appro­pria­te safe­guards, the Com­mit­tee shall for­ward its opi­ni­on to the Commission.
(9. The Com­mis­si­on may, by means of imple­men­ting acts, deci­de that the appro­ved con­duct rules noti­fi­ed to it in accordance with para­graph 8, or their appro­ved amend­ment or exten­si­on, shall have gene­ral appli­ca­ti­on in the Uni­on. Tho­se imple­men­ting acts shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).
(10) The Com­mis­si­on shall ensu­re that the appro­ved rules of con­duct, which have been gran­ted gene­ral vali­di­ty in accordance with para­graph 9, are published in an appro­pria­te manner.
(11) The com­mit­tee shall record all appro­ved rules of con­duct or their appro­ved amend­ments or exten­si­ons in a regi­ster and publish them in an appro­pria­te manner.
Reci­tals
(98) Asso­cia­ti­ons or other bodies repre­sen­ting cer­tain cate­go­ries of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors should be encou­ra­ged to draw up codes of con­duct within the limits of this Regu­la­ti­on in order to faci­li­ta­te the effec­ti­ve appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account the spe­ci­fi­ci­ties of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out in cer­tain sec­tors and the spe­ci­fic needs of micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses. In par­ti­cu­lar, the­se codes of con­duct could deter­mi­ne the obli­ga­ti­ons of con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors, taking into account the risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons likely to be repre­sen­ted by the processing.
(99) When deve­lo­ping or amen­ding or exten­ding such codes of con­duct, asso­cia­ti­ons and or other bodies repre­sen­ting cer­tain cate­go­ries of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors should con­sult rele­vant stake­hol­ders, inclu­ding, whe­re pos­si­ble, data sub­jects, and take into account the input and opi­ni­ons they recei­ve in the process.

Artic­le 41 Moni­to­ring of the appro­ved rules of conduct

(1) Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the duties and powers of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty under Artic­les 57 and 58, the moni­to­ring of com­pli­ance with rules of con­duct under Artic­le 40 may be car­ri­ed out by a body which has the appro­pria­te exper­ti­se with respect to the sub­ject mat­ter of the rules of con­duct and which has been accre­di­ted by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty for that purpose.
(2) A body refer­red to in para­graph (1) may be accre­di­ted for the pur­po­se of moni­to­ring com­pli­ance with rules of con­duct if it
a) has demon­stra­ted its inde­pen­dence and exper­ti­se with respect to the sub­ject mat­ter of the rules of con­duct to the satis­fac­tion of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry authority;
b) has estab­lished pro­ce­du­res that enable it to assess whe­ther con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors can app­ly the rules of con­duct, to moni­tor the com­pli­ance of con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors with the rules of con­duct, and to review the appli­ca­ti­on of the rules of con­duct on a regu­lar basis;
c) has estab­lished pro­ce­du­res and struc­tures for inve­sti­ga­ting com­plaints about vio­la­ti­ons of the rules of con­duct or about the way in which the rules of con­duct are or have been applied by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and for making the­se pro­ce­du­res and struc­tures trans­pa­rent to data sub­jects and the public; and
d) has demon­stra­ted to the satis­fac­tion of the rele­vant super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty that its duties and respon­si­bi­li­ties do not give rise to a con­flict of interest.
(The com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall com­mu­ni­ca­te the draft cri­te­ria for the accre­di­ta­ti­on of a body refer­red to in para­graph 1 to the Com­mit­tee in accordance with the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism refer­red to in Artic­le 63.
(Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the tasks and powers of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the pro­vi­si­ons of Chap­ter VIII, a body refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall, sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards, take appro­pria­te mea­su­res in the event of a breach of the rules of con­duct by a con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor, inclu­ding tem­po­ra­ry or per­ma­nent exclu­si­on of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor from the rules of con­duct. It shall inform the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of such mea­su­res and their justification.
(5) The com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall revo­ke the accre­di­ta­ti­on of a body refer­red to in para­graph 1 if the con­di­ti­ons for its accre­di­ta­ti­on are not or are no lon­ger ful­fil­led or if the body takes mea­su­res which are not in con­for­mi­ty with this Regulation.
(6) This Artic­le shall not app­ly to pro­ce­s­sing by public aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies.

Artic­le 42 Certification

(Mem­ber Sta­tes, super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, the Board and the Com­mis­si­on shall encou­ra­ge, in par­ti­cu­lar at Uni­on level, the estab­lish­ment of data pro­tec­tion cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on sche­mes and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks to demon­stra­te com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on in pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons by con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors. The spe­ci­fic needs of micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses shall be taken into account.
In addi­ti­on to com­pli­ance by con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors cover­ed by this Regu­la­ti­on, data pro­tec­tion spe­ci­fic cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res, seals or marks appro­ved in accordance with para­graph 5 of this Artic­le may also be pro­vi­ded for in order to demon­stra­te that con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors not cover­ed by this Regu­la­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 3 pro­vi­de appro­pria­te safe­guards in the con­text of trans­fers of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons in accordance with point (f) of Artic­le 46(2). Tho­se con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors shall enter into a bin­ding and enforceable obli­ga­ti­on, by means of con­trac­tu­al or other legal­ly bin­ding instru­ments, to app­ly tho­se appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding with respect to the rights of data subjects.
(3) Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on must be vol­un­t­a­ry and acce­s­si­ble via a trans­pa­rent procedure.
(4. Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pur­su­ant to this Artic­le shall not dimi­nish the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor for com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on and shall not affect the tasks and powers of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties com­pe­tent pur­su­ant to Artic­le 55 or 56.
5. Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on under this Artic­le shall be gran­ted by the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies refer­red to in Artic­le 43 or by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty on the basis of cri­te­ria appro­ved by that com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in accordance with Artic­le 58(3) or, in accordance with Artic­le 63, by the Board. Whe­re the cri­te­ria are appro­ved by the Board, this may lead to a com­mon cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on, the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Seal.
(6. The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor sub­jec­ting the pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out by it to the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re shall pro­vi­de the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body refer­red to in Artic­le 43 or, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty with all the infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry for car­ry­ing out the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­re and shall grant it the access to its pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties requi­red in this context.
(7. Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on shall be gran­ted to a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor for a maxi­mum peri­od of three years and may be rene­wed under the same con­di­ti­ons, pro­vi­ded that the rele­vant requi­re­ments con­ti­n­ue to be met. Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on shall be revo­ked, as appro­pria­te, by the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies refer­red to in Artic­le 43 or by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty if the con­di­ti­ons for cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on are not or are no lon­ger met.
(8) The Com­mit­tee shall record all cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks in a regi­ster and publish them in an appro­pria­te manner.
Reci­tals
(100) In order to increa­se trans­pa­ren­cy and impro­ve com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, it should be encou­ra­ged that cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks are put in place to allow data sub­jects to have a quick over­view of the level of data pro­tec­tion of rele­vant pro­ducts and services.

Artic­le 43 Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies

Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the tasks and powers of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty as refer­red to in Artic­les 57 and 58, cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies having the appro­pria­te exper­ti­se in data pro­tec­tion shall, after informing the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty – in order to enable it to make use of its powers under point (h) of Artic­le 58(2), if neces­sa­ry – grant or renew cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on. Mem­ber Sta­tes shall ensu­re that tho­se cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies are accre­di­ted by one or both of the fol­lo­wing bodies:
a) the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pur­su­ant to Artic­le 55 or 56;
b) the natio­nal accre­di­ta­ti­on body desi­gna­ted in accordance with Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 765/2008 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (20 ) in con­for­mi­ty with EN-ISO/IEC 17065/2012 and with the addi­tio­nal requi­re­ments estab­lished by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in accordance with Artic­le 55 or 56.
(2) Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies refer­red to in para­graph (1) may be accre­di­ted in accordance with that para­graph only if they
a) have demon­stra­ted their inde­pen­dence and exper­ti­se with respect to the sub­ject mat­ter of the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on to the satis­fac­tion of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry authority;
b) have under­ta­ken to com­ply with the cri­te­ria refer­red to in Artic­le 42(5) appro­ved by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent in accordance with Artic­le 55 or 56 or, in accordance with Artic­le 63, by the Committee;
c) have estab­lished pro­ce­du­res for the issu­an­ce, peri­odic review, and revo­ca­ti­on of data pro­tec­tion cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks;
d) Have estab­lished pro­ce­du­res and struc­tures for inve­sti­ga­ting com­plaints about brea­ches of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or the man­ner in which cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on is or has been imple­men­ted by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and for making tho­se pro­ce­du­res and struc­tures trans­pa­rent to data sub­jects and the public; and
e) have demon­stra­ted to the satis­fac­tion of the rele­vant super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty that their duties and respon­si­bi­li­ties do not give rise to a con­flict of interest.
(3. The accre­di­ta­ti­on of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies refer­red to in para­graphs 1 and 2 shall be car­ri­ed out on the basis of the cri­te­ria appro­ved by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty refer­red to in Artic­le 55 or 56 or, in accordance with Artic­le 63, by the Com­mit­tee. In the case of accre­di­ta­ti­on under para­graph 1(b) of this Artic­le, tho­se requi­re­ments shall be addi­tio­nal to tho­se pro­vi­ded for in Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 765/2008 and in the tech­ni­cal rules describ­ing the methods and pro­ce­du­res of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies.
(The cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall be respon­si­ble for the appro­pria­te assess­ment under­ly­ing the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or with­dra­wal of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor for com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on. Accre­di­ta­ti­on shall be gran­ted for a maxi­mum peri­od of five years and may be rene­wed under the same con­di­ti­ons, pro­vi­ded that the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body com­plies with the requi­re­ments of this Article.
(5) The cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall noti­fy the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of the rea­sons for gran­ting or with­dra­wing the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on applied for.
6. The requi­re­ments refer­red to in para­graph 3 of this Artic­le and the cri­te­ria refer­red to in Artic­le 42(5) shall be published by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in an easi­ly acce­s­si­ble form. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall also com­mu­ni­ca­te tho­se requi­re­ments and cri­te­ria to the Board. The Board shall include all cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res and data pro­tec­tion seals in a regi­ster and publish them in an appro­pria­te manner.
(7. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to Chap­ter VIII, the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or the natio­nal accre­di­ta­ti­on body shall with­draw the accre­di­ta­ti­on of a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body refer­red to in para­graph 1 if the con­di­ti­ons for accre­di­ta­ti­on are not or are no lon­ger ful­fil­led or if a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body takes mea­su­res which are incom­pa­ti­ble with this Regulation.
8. The Com­mis­si­on shall be empowered to adopt dele­ga­ted acts in accordance with Artic­le 92 to spe­ci­fy the requi­re­ments to be taken into account for the data pro­tec­tion spe­ci­fic cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res refer­red to in Artic­le 42(1).
(9. The Com­mis­si­on may adopt imple­men­ting acts lay­ing down tech­ni­cal stan­dards for cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on sche­mes and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks and mecha­nisms for the pro­mo­ti­on and reco­gni­ti­on of tho­se cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on sche­mes and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks. Tho­se imple­men­ting acts shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).

Chap­ter V Trans­fers of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal organizations

Artic­le 44 Gene­ral prin­ci­ples of data transmission

Any trans­fer of per­so­nal data alre­a­dy pro­ce­s­sed or to be pro­ce­s­sed after their trans­fer to a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on shall only be allo­wed if the con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor com­ply with the con­di­ti­ons laid down in this Chap­ter and also with the other pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on, inclu­ding any onward trans­fer of per­so­nal data by the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned to ano­ther third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on. All pro­vi­si­ons of this Chap­ter shall be applied in order to ensu­re that the level of pro­tec­tion of natu­ral per­sons ensu­red by this Regu­la­ti­on is not under­mi­ned.
Reci­tals
(101) The flow of per­so­nal data from and to third count­ries and inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons is neces­sa­ry for the expan­si­on of inter­na­tio­nal trade and coope­ra­ti­on. The increa­se in the­se data flows has crea­ted new chal­lenges and requi­re­ments in rela­ti­on to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data. Howe­ver, the level of pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als ensu­red by this Regu­la­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on should not be under­mi­ned when per­so­nal data are trans­fer­red from the Uni­on to con­trol­lers, pro­ces­sors or other reci­pi­en­ts in third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, inclu­ding when per­so­nal data are fur­ther trans­fer­red from a third coun­try or from an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on to con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors in the same or ano­ther third coun­try or to the same or ano­ther inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on. In any case, such data trans­fers to third count­ries and inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons are only per­mit­ted in strict com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on. A data trans­fer could only take place if the con­di­ti­ons set out in this Regu­la­ti­on for the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons are met by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, sub­ject to the other pro­vi­si­ons of this Regulation.
(102) This Regu­la­ti­on is wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to inter­na­tio­nal agree­ments bet­ween the Uni­on and third count­ries con­cer­ning the trans­fer of per­so­nal data, inclu­ding appro­pria­te safe­guards for data sub­jects. Mem­ber Sta­tes may con­clude inter­na­tio­nal agree­ments invol­ving the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, pro­vi­ded that tho­se agree­ments do not affect this Regu­la­ti­on or other pro­vi­si­ons of Uni­on law and include an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion for the fun­da­men­tal rights of data subjects.

Artic­le 45 Data trans­fer on the basis of an ade­qua­cy decision

(A trans­fer of per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on may take place if the Com­mis­si­on has deci­ded that the third coun­try, ter­ri­to­ry or one or more spe­ci­fic sec­tors within that third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on in que­sti­on pro­vi­des an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion. Such trans­fer of data does not requi­re a spe­ci­fic authorization.
(2. In asses­sing the ade­qua­cy of the level of pro­tec­tion affor­ded, the Com­mis­si­on shall take into account, in par­ti­cu­lar, the following:
a) the rule of law, respect for human rights and fun­da­men­tal free­doms, rele­vant legis­la­ti­on in force in the coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned, both gene­ral and sec­to­ral, inclu­ding in rela­ti­on to public secu­ri­ty, defen­se, natio­nal secu­ri­ty and cri­mi­nal law, and access to per­so­nal data by public aut­ho­ri­ties, as well as the appli­ca­ti­on of such legis­la­ti­on, data pro­tec­tion rules, pro­fes­sio­nal rules and secu­ri­ty rules, inclu­ding rules gover­ning onward trans­fers of per­so­nal data to ano­ther third coun­try or ano­ther inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, juris­dic­tion, and effec­ti­ve and enforceable data sub­ject rights and effec­ti­ve admi­ni­stra­ti­ve and judi­cial reme­dies for data sub­jects who­se per­so­nal data are transferred,
b) the exi­stence and effec­ti­ve func­tio­ning of one or more inde­pen­dent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties in the third coun­try con­cer­ned or to which an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on is ans­werable and which are respon­si­ble for ensu­ring com­pli­ance with and enforce­ment of data pro­tec­tion rules, inclu­ding appro­pria­te enforce­ment powers, for assi­sting and advi­sing data sub­jects in the exer­cise of their rights, and for coope­ra­ting with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of the Mem­ber Sta­tes; and
c) the inter­na­tio­nal com­mit­ments ente­red into by the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned or other obli­ga­ti­ons ari­sing from legal­ly bin­ding agree­ments or instru­ments and from the par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on of the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on in mul­ti­la­te­ral or regio­nal systems, in par­ti­cu­lar with regard to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data.
(3. Fol­lo­wing the assess­ment of the ade­qua­cy of the level of pro­tec­tion, the Com­mis­si­on may deci­de, by means of an imple­men­ting act, that a third coun­try, a ter­ri­to­ry or one or more spe­ci­fic sec­tors in a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on pro­vi­de an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion within the mea­ning of para­graph 2 of this Artic­le. The imple­men­ting act shall pro­vi­de for a mecha­nism for regu­lar review, at least every four years, taking into account any rele­vant deve­lo­p­ments in the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on. The imple­men­ting act shall spe­ci­fy the ter­ri­to­ri­al and sec­to­ral scope and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or aut­ho­ri­ties refer­red to in point (b) of para­graph 2 of this Artic­le. The imple­men­ting act shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).
4. The Com­mis­si­on shall keep under con­stant review deve­lo­p­ments in third count­ries and in inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons which could affect the ope­ra­ti­on of the decis­i­ons adopted pur­su­ant to para­graph 3 of this Artic­le and the fin­dings adopted pur­su­ant to Artic­le 25(6) of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC.
(The Com­mis­si­on shall, by means of imple­men­ting acts, revo­ke, amend or sus­pend the decis­i­ons refer­red to in para­graph 3 of this Artic­le, whe­re neces­sa­ry and wit­hout retroac­ti­ve effect, whe­re rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on is available, in par­ti­cu­lar fol­lo­wing the review refer­red to in para­graph 3 of this Artic­le, to the effect that a third coun­try, a ter­ri­to­ry or one or more spe­ci­fic sec­tors within a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on no lon­ger ensu­res an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion within the mea­ning of para­graph 2 of this Artic­le. Tho­se imple­men­ting acts shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).
On duly justi­fi­ed impe­ra­ti­ve grounds of urgen­cy, the Com­mis­si­on shall adopt imme­dia­te­ly appli­ca­ble imple­men­ting acts in accordance with the pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(3).
(6. The Com­mis­si­on shall enter into con­sul­ta­ti­ons with the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned with a view to reme­dy­ing the situa­ti­on which gave rise to the decis­i­on adopted pur­su­ant to para­graph 5.
(7. Trans­fers of per­so­nal data to the third coun­try, ter­ri­to­ry or one or more spe­ci­fic sec­tors in that third coun­try or to the inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned pur­su­ant to Artic­les 46 to 49 shall not be affec­ted by a decis­i­on taken pur­su­ant to para­graph 5 of this Article.
(8. The Com­mis­si­on shall publish in the Offi­ci­al Jour­nal of the Euro­pean Uni­on and on its web­site a list of all third count­ries or ter­ri­to­ries and spe­ci­fic sec­tors within a third coun­try and all inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons in respect of which it has deter­mi­ned by decis­i­on that they do or do not ensu­re an ade­qua­te level of protection.
9. Fin­dings adopted by the Com­mis­si­on on the basis of Artic­le 25(6) of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC shall remain in force until they are amen­ded, repla­ced or repea­led by a Com­mis­si­on decis­i­on adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in para­graphs 3 or 5 of this Article.
Reci­tals
(103) The Com­mis­si­on may deci­de, with effect for the who­le Uni­on, that a spe­ci­fic third coun­try, ter­ri­to­ry or sec­tor of a third coun­try, or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, pro­vi­des an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion, ther­eby crea­ting legal cer­tain­ty and ensu­ring uni­form appli­ca­ti­on of the law throug­hout the Uni­on with respect to the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on dee­med capa­ble of pro­vi­ding such a level of pro­tec­tion. In such cases, per­so­nal data may be trans­fer­red to that coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on wit­hout fur­ther aut­ho­rizati­on. The Com­mis­si­on may, after pro­vi­ding a detail­ed expl­ana­ti­on giving rea­sons to the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, also deci­de to revo­ke such a determination.
(104) In accordance with the fun­da­men­tal values of the Uni­on, which include in par­ti­cu­lar the pro­tec­tion of human rights, the Com­mis­si­on, when asses­sing the third coun­try or a ter­ri­to­ry or a par­ti­cu­lar sec­tor of a third coun­try, should take into account the ext­ent to which the rule of law is respec­ted, the cour­se of justi­ce is gua­ran­teed and inter­na­tio­nal human rights norms and stan­dards are respec­ted, as well as the gene­ral and sec­tor-spe­ci­fic rules, inclu­ding tho­se on public secu­ri­ty, natio­nal defen­se and secu­ri­ty, public order and cri­mi­nal law, appli­ca­ble the­re. The adop­ti­on of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on in rela­ti­on to a ter­ri­to­ry or a spe­ci­fic sec­tor of a third coun­try should be made taking into account clear and objec­ti­ve cri­te­ria such as spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons and the scope of appli­ca­ble legal stan­dards and appli­ca­ble legis­la­ti­on in the third coun­try. The third coun­try should pro­vi­de gua­ran­tees of an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion equi­va­lent in sub­stance to that ensu­red within the Uni­on, in par­ti­cu­lar in cases whe­re per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed in one or more spe­ci­fic sec­tors. In par­ti­cu­lar, the third coun­try should ensu­re effec­ti­ve inde­pen­dent super­vi­si­on of data pro­tec­tion and pro­vi­de mecha­nisms for coope­ra­ti­on with Mem­ber Sta­tes’ data pro­tec­tion aut­ho­ri­ties, and data sub­jects should be pro­vi­ded with effec­ti­ve and enforceable rights and effec­ti­ve admi­ni­stra­ti­ve and judi­cial remedies.
(105) The Com­mis­si­on should take into account, in addi­ti­on to the inter­na­tio­nal com­mit­ments ente­red into by the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, the obli­ga­ti­ons ari­sing from the third country’s or inter­na­tio­nal organization’s par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in mul­ti­la­te­ral or regio­nal systems, in par­ti­cu­lar with regard to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, and the imple­men­ta­ti­on of tho­se obli­ga­ti­ons. In par­ti­cu­lar, the third country’s acce­s­si­on to the Coun­cil of Euro­pe Con­ven­ti­on for the Pro­tec­tion of Indi­vi­du­als with regard to Auto­ma­tic Pro­ce­s­sing of Per­so­nal Data of 28 Janu­ary 1981 and the Addi­tio­nal Pro­to­col the­re­to should be taken into account. The Com­mis­si­on should con­sult the Com­mit­tee when asses­sing the level of pro­tec­tion in third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal organizations.
(106) The Com­mis­si­on should moni­tor the func­tio­ning of fin­dings on the level of pro­tec­tion in a third coun­try, a ter­ri­to­ry or a spe­ci­fic sec­tor of a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­ni­sa­ti­on; it should also moni­tor the func­tio­ning of fin­dings adopted on the basis of Artic­le 25(6) or Artic­le 26(4) of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC. In its ade­qua­cy decis­i­ons, the Com­mis­si­on should pro­vi­de a mecha­nism for peri­odic review of their ope­ra­ti­on. This peri­odic review should be car­ri­ed out in con­sul­ta­ti­on with the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on con­cer­ned and should take into account any rele­vant deve­lo­p­ments in the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on. For the pur­po­ses of moni­to­ring and car­ry­ing out the peri­odic reviews, the Com­mis­si­on should take into account the views and fin­dings of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and the Coun­cil and of other rele­vant bodies and sources. The Com­mis­si­on should, within a rea­sonable peri­od of time, eva­lua­te the ope­ra­ti­on of the lat­ter decis­i­ons and report any rele­vant fin­dings to the Com­mit­tee estab­lished by this Regu­la­ti­on within the mea­ning of Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 182/2011 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (12) and to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and the Council.
(107) The Com­mis­si­on may deter­mi­ne that a third coun­try, a ter­ri­to­ry or a spe­ci­fic sec­tor of a third coun­try, or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on no lon­ger pro­vi­des an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion. The trans­fer of per­so­nal data to that third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on should thereu­pon be pro­hi­bi­ted unless the requi­re­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on rela­ting to the trans­fer of data, sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules and to excep­ti­ons for spe­ci­fic cases, are met. In that case, pro­vi­si­on should be made for con­sul­ta­ti­ons bet­ween the Com­mis­si­on and the third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons con­cer­ned. The Com­mis­si­on should inform the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on at an ear­ly stage of the rea­sons and start con­sul­ta­ti­ons in order to reme­dy the situation.
(169) The Com­mis­si­on should adopt imme­dia­te­ly appli­ca­ble imple­men­ting acts whe­re it is estab­lished on the basis of available evi­dence that a third coun­try, a ter­ri­to­ry or a spe­ci­fic sec­tor within that third coun­try, or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, does not ensu­re an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion and that this is neces­sa­ry on impe­ra­ti­ve grounds of urgency.

Artic­le 46 Data trans­fer sub­ject to appro­pria­te safeguards

In the absence of a decis­i­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 45(3), a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor may trans­fer per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on only if the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has pro­vi­ded appro­pria­te safe­guards and if enforceable rights and effec­ti­ve legal reme­dies are available to the data subjects.
(2) The appro­pria­te safe­guards refer­red to in para­graph (1) may, wit­hout the need for spe­ci­fic appr­oval by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, con­sist in
a) a legal­ly bin­ding and enforceable docu­ment bet­ween aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies,
b) bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules in accordance with Artic­le 47,
c) stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses adopted by the Com­mis­si­on in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2),
d) stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses adopted by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and appro­ved by the Com­mis­si­on in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2),
e) appro­ved codes of con­duct in accordance with Artic­le 40, tog­e­ther with legal­ly bin­ding and enforceable com­mit­ments by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the third coun­try to app­ly the appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding in rela­ti­on to the rights of data sub­jects; or
f) an appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on mecha­nism pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42, tog­e­ther with legal­ly bin­ding and enforceable com­mit­ments by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the third coun­try to app­ly the appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding in rela­ti­on to the rights of data subjects.
(3. Sub­ject to the appr­oval of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the appro­pria­te safe­guards refer­red to in para­graph 1 may also con­sist in par­ti­cu­lar in
a) Con­trac­tu­al clau­ses agreed bet­ween the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and the con­trol­ler, pro­ces­sor or reci­pi­ent of the per­so­nal data in the third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on; or
b) Pro­vi­si­ons to be inclu­ded in admi­ni­stra­ti­ve agree­ments bet­ween public aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies that include enforceable and effec­ti­ve rights for data subjects.
(4) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall app­ly the con­si­sten­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 63 in the event of a case refer­red to in para­graph 3 of this Article.
5. Aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­ons issued by a Mem­ber Sta­te or a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty on the basis of Artic­le 26(2) of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC shall remain valid until amen­ded, repla­ced or revo­ked, as neces­sa­ry, by that super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty. Deter­mi­na­ti­ons issued by the Com­mis­si­on on the basis of Artic­le 26(4) of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC shall remain in force until amen­ded, repla­ced or revo­ked, as neces­sa­ry, by a Com­mis­si­on decis­i­on adopted in accordance with para­graph 2 of this Article.
Reci­tals
(108) In the absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should pro­vi­de appro­pria­te safe­guards for the pro­tec­tion of the data sub­ject as com­pen­sa­ti­on for the lack of data pro­tec­tion in a third coun­try. The­se appro­pria­te safe­guards may con­sist in rely­ing on bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules, stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses adopted by the Com­mis­si­on or by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, or con­trac­tu­al clau­ses appro­ved by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty. Tho­se safe­guards should ensu­re that data pro­tec­tion rules and the rights of data sub­jects are respec­ted in a man­ner appro­pria­te to the pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out within the Uni­on, inclu­ding as regards the avai­la­bi­li­ty of enforceable data sub­ject rights and effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dies, inclu­ding the right to effec­ti­ve admi­ni­stra­ti­ve or judi­cial reme­dy and the right to seek redress in the Uni­on or in a third coun­try. They should rela­te in par­ti­cu­lar to com­pli­ance with the gene­ral prin­ci­ples for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data, the prin­ci­ples of data pro­tec­tion by design and by default. Data trans­fers may also be made by public aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies to public aut­ho­ri­ties or public bodies in third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons with equi­va­lent obli­ga­ti­ons or tasks, inclu­ding on the basis of pro­vi­si­ons to be inclu­ded in admi­ni­stra­ti­ve arran­ge­ments – such as a Memo­ran­dum of Under­stan­ding – gran­ting enforceable and effec­ti­ve rights to data sub­jects. The appr­oval of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be obtai­ned if the safe­guards are pro­vi­ded for in admi­ni­stra­ti­ve arran­ge­ments that are not legal­ly binding.
(109) The pos­si­bi­li­ty for the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to use the stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses estab­lished by the Com­mis­si­on or a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should not pre­vent the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor from using the stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses also in more exten­si­ve con­tracts, such as con­tracts bet­ween the pro­ces­sor and ano­ther pro­ces­sor, nor pre­vent them from adding fur­ther clau­ses or addi­tio­nal safe­guards to them, as long as they do not direct­ly or indi­rect­ly con­flict with the stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses adopted by the Com­mis­si­on or a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or inter­fe­re with the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of data sub­jects. Con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors should be encou­ra­ged to pro­vi­de addi­tio­nal safe­guards with con­trac­tu­al obli­ga­ti­ons that com­ple­ment the stan­dard safeguards.
(114) In all cases whe­re the­re is no Com­mis­si­on decis­i­on on the ade­qua­cy of the level of data pro­tec­tion exi­sting in a third coun­try, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should have recour­se to solu­ti­ons that pro­vi­de data sub­jects with enforceable and effec­ti­ve rights in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing of their per­so­nal data in the Uni­on after the trans­fer of tho­se data, so that they can con­ti­n­ue to enjoy the fun­da­men­tal rights and safeguards.

Artic­le 47 Bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules

(1. The com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall, in accordance with the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism refer­red to in Artic­le 63, appro­ve bin­ding inter­nal rules on data pro­tec­tion, pro­vi­ded that they
a) are legal­ly bin­ding, app­ly to and are enforced by all rele­vant mem­bers of the group of com­pa­nies or a group of com­pa­nies enga­ged in a com­mon eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty, and this also applies to their employees,
b) con­fer on data sub­jects expli­cit enforceable rights in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing of their per­so­nal data; and
c) meet the requi­re­ments spe­ci­fi­ed in para­graph 2.
(2) The bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall con­tain at least the fol­lo­wing information:
a) Struc­tu­re and cont­act details of the group of com­pa­nies or group of com­pa­nies enga­ged in joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty and each of its members;
b) the data trans­fers or series of data trans­fers con­cer­ned, inclu­ding the types of per­so­nal data con­cer­ned, the natu­re and pur­po­se of the data pro­ce­s­sing, the type of data sub­jects and the third coun­try or third count­ries concerned;
c) inter­nal and exter­nal legal­ly bin­ding natu­re of the rele­vant inter­nal data pro­tec­tion regulations;
d) the appli­ca­ti­on of gene­ral data pro­tec­tion prin­ci­ples, in par­ti­cu­lar pur­po­se limi­ta­ti­on, data mini­mizati­on, limi­t­ed sto­rage peri­ods, data qua­li­ty, data pro­tec­tion through tech­no­lo­gy design and through data pro­tec­tion-fri­end­ly default set­tings, legal basis for pro­ce­s­sing, pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data, mea­su­res to ensu­re data secu­ri­ty and requi­re­ments for onward trans­fers to enti­ties not bound by the­se inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules;
e) the rights of data sub­jects with regard to pro­ce­s­sing and the means available to them to exer­cise tho­se rights, inclu­ding the right not to be sub­ject to a decis­i­on based sole­ly on auto­ma­ted pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding pro­fil­ing, as refer­red to in Artic­le 22, and the right to lodge a com­plaint with the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or to seek judi­cial reme­dy befo­re the com­pe­tent courts of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, as laid down in Artic­le 79, and to obtain redress and, whe­re appro­pria­te, com­pen­sa­ti­on in the event of a breach of the bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules;
f) the lia­bi­li­ty assu­med by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor estab­lished in a Mem­ber Sta­te for any breach of the man­da­to­ry inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules by a rele­vant mem­ber of the group of under­ta­kings not estab­lished in the Uni­on; the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall be exempt from such lia­bi­li­ty, in who­le or in part, only if it pro­ves that the cir­cum­stance giving rise to the dama­ge can­not be attri­bu­ted to the mem­ber concerned;
g) the man­ner in which the data sub­jects are infor­med, in addi­ti­on to the pro­vi­si­ons of Artic­les 13 and 14, of the man­da­to­ry inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules and, in par­ti­cu­lar, of the aspects refer­red to in points (d), (e) and (f) of this paragraph;
h) the tasks of any data pro­tec­tion offi­cer appoin­ted in accordance with Artic­le 37 or any other per­son or body invol­ved in moni­to­ring com­pli­ance with the man­da­to­ry inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules in the group of under­ta­kings or group of under­ta­kings car­ry­ing out a joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty, as well as moni­to­ring trai­ning acti­vi­ties and deal­ing with complaints;
i) the appeal procedures;
j) the pro­ce­du­res in place within the group of com­pa­nies or group of com­pa­nies enga­ged in joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty to veri­fy com­pli­ance with man­da­to­ry inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules. Such pro­ce­du­res shall include data pro­tec­tion reviews and pro­ce­du­res to ensu­re reme­di­al action to pro­tect the rights of the data sub­ject. The results of such reviews should be com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the per­son or enti­ty refer­red to in point (h) and to the manage­ment board of the con­trol­ling under­ta­king of a group of under­ta­kings or of the group of under­ta­kings enga­ged in joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ties and should be made available to the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty upon request;
k) the pro­ce­du­res for report­ing and recor­ding chan­ges in regu­la­ti­ons and report­ing them to the super­vi­so­ry authority;
l) the pro­ce­du­res for coope­ra­ti­on with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty that ensu­re com­pli­ance by all mem­bers of the group of under­ta­kings or group of under­ta­kings enga­ged in a joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar by dis­clo­sing to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty the results of reviews of the mea­su­res refer­red to in point (j);
m) the noti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res for informing the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of any legal pro­vi­si­ons appli­ca­ble to a mem­ber of the group of under­ta­kings or group of enti­ties enga­ged in a joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty in a third coun­try that could have an adver­se effect on the safe­guards pro­vi­ded by the bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules; and
n) appro­pria­te data pro­tec­tion trai­ning for per­son­nel with per­ma­nent or regu­lar access to per­so­nal data.
(The Com­mis­si­on may estab­lish the for­mat and pro­ce­du­res for the exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on on bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules refer­red to in this Artic­le bet­ween con­trol­lers, pro­ces­sors and super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. Tho­se imple­men­ting acts shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).

Artic­le 48 Trans­fer or dis­clo­sure not per­mit­ted by Uni­on law

Any judgment of a court of a third coun­try and any decis­i­on of an admi­ni­stra­ti­ve aut­ho­ri­ty of a third coun­try requi­ring a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to trans­fer or dis­c­lo­se per­so­nal data shall, in any event, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to other grounds for trans­fer under this Chap­ter, only be reco­gnized or enforceable if based on an inter­na­tio­nal agree­ment in force, such as a mutu­al legal assi­stance agree­ment bet­ween the reque­st­ing third coun­try and the Uni­on or a Mem­ber Sta­te.
Reci­tals
(115) Some third count­ries adopt laws, regu­la­ti­ons and other legal acts which pur­port to direct­ly regu­la­te the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties of natu­ral and legal per­sons under the juris­dic­tion of the Mem­ber Sta­tes. This may include judgments of courts and decis­i­ons of admi­ni­stra­ti­ve aut­ho­ri­ties in third count­ries requi­ring a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to trans­fer or dis­c­lo­se per­so­nal data and which are not based on an inter­na­tio­nal agree­ment in force, such as a mutu­al legal assi­stance agree­ment bet­ween the reque­st­ing third coun­try and the Uni­on or a Mem­ber Sta­te. The appli­ca­ti­on of tho­se laws, regu­la­ti­ons and other legal instru­ments out­side the ter­ri­to­ry of the third count­ries con­cer­ned may be con­tra­ry to inter­na­tio­nal law and may run coun­ter to the pro­tec­tion of natu­ral per­sons ensu­red by this Regu­la­ti­on in the Uni­on. Data trans­fers should the­r­e­fo­re only be allo­wed if the con­di­ti­ons laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on for data trans­fers to third count­ries are com­plied with. This may be the case, inter alia, whe­re the dis­clo­sure is neces­sa­ry for an important public inte­rest reco­gnized by Uni­on law or by the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te to which the con­trol­ler is subject.

Artic­le 49 Excep­ti­ons for cer­tain cases

In the absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 45(3) or of appro­pria­te safe­guards pur­su­ant to Artic­le 46, inclu­ding bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules, a trans­fer or set of trans­fers of per­so­nal data to a third coun­try or to an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on shall only be allo­wed under one of the fol­lo­wing conditions:
a) the data sub­ject has given his or her expli­cit con­sent to the pro­po­sed data trans­fer after having been infor­med of the poten­ti­al risks to him or her of such data trans­fers in the absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on and appro­pria­te safeguards,
b) the trans­fer is neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of a con­tract bet­ween the data sub­ject and the con­trol­ler or for the per­for­mance of pre-con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res at the request of the data subject,
c) the trans­fer is neces­sa­ry for the con­clu­si­on or per­for­mance of a con­tract con­clu­ded in the inte­rest of the data sub­ject by the con­trol­ler with ano­ther natu­ral or legal person,
d) the trans­fer is neces­sa­ry for important rea­sons of public interest,
e) the trans­fer is neces­sa­ry for the asser­ti­on, exer­cise or defen­se of legal claims,
f) the trans­fer is neces­sa­ry to pro­tect the vital inte­rests of the data sub­ject or of others, whe­re the data sub­ject is phy­si­cal­ly or legal­ly inca­pa­ble of giving consent,
g) the trans­fer is made from a regi­ster which, in accordance with Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, is inten­ded to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on to the public and which is open to con­sul­ta­ti­on eit­her by the public at lar­ge or by any per­son who can demon­stra­te a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest, but only to the ext­ent that the con­di­ti­ons for con­sul­ta­ti­on laid down in Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law are met in the indi­vi­du­al case.
If the trans­fer could not be based on a pro­vi­si­on of Artic­les 45 or 46 – inclu­ding bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules – and none of the excep­ti­ons for a spe­ci­fic case under the first sub­pa­ra­graph applies, a trans­fer to a third coun­try or an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on may only take place if the trans­fer is not repea­ted, con­cerns only a limi­t­ed num­ber of data sub­jects, is neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­ses of the com­pel­ling legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the con­trol­ler, pro­vi­ded that the inte­rests or the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject are not over­ridden, and the con­trol­ler has asses­sed all the cir­cum­stances sur­roun­ding the data trans­fer and, on the basis of that assess­ment, has pro­vi­ded appro­pria­te safe­guards with respect to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data. The con­trol­ler shall noti­fy the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the trans­fer. The con­trol­ler shall inform the data sub­ject of the trans­fer and its com­pel­ling legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests; this shall be in addi­ti­on to the infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded to the data sub­ject pur­su­ant to Artic­les 13 and 14.
Data trans­fers refer­red to in point (g) of the first sub­pa­ra­graph of para­graph 1 may not include all or enti­re cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data con­tai­ned in the regi­ster. If the regi­ster is inten­ded for inspec­tion by per­sons with a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest, the trans­fer may be made only at the request of tho­se per­sons or only if tho­se per­sons are the addres­sees of the transfer.
(3) Points (a), (b) and (c) of the first sub­pa­ra­graph of para­graph 1 and the second sub­pa­ra­graph of para­graph 1 shall not app­ly to acti­vi­ties car­ri­ed out by public aut­ho­ri­ties in the exer­cise of their sove­reign powers.
The public inte­rest refer­red to in point (d) of the first sub­pa­ra­graph of para­graph 1 shall be reco­gnized by Uni­on law or by the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te to which the con­trol­ler is subject.
(5. In the absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may, for important rea­sons of public inte­rest, express­ly pro­vi­de for rest­ric­tions on the trans­fer of cer­tain cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­ni­sa­ti­ons. Mem­ber Sta­tes shall noti­fy such pro­vi­si­ons to the Commission.
(6) The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall record the assess­ment it has made and the ade­qua­te safe­guards refer­red to in the second sub­pa­ra­graph of para­graph 1 of this Artic­le in the docu­men­ta­ti­on refer­red to in Artic­le 30.
Reci­tals
(111) Trans­fers should be allo­wed under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons, name­ly whe­re the data sub­ject has given his or her expli­cit con­sent, whe­re the trans­fer is occa­sio­nal and neces­sa­ry in the con­text of a con­tract or in order to pur­sue legal claims, whe­ther in court or through admi­ni­stra­ti­ve chan­nels, or in out-of-court pro­ce­e­dings, inclu­ding pro­ce­e­dings befo­re regu­la­to­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. The trans­fer should also be pos­si­ble if it is neces­sa­ry for the pro­tec­tion of an important public inte­rest laid down in Uni­on law or in the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te, or if it is made from a regi­ster pro­vi­ded for by law which may be con­sul­ted by the public or by per­sons having a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest. In the lat­ter case, such trans­fer should not be allo­wed to extend to all or who­le cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data con­tai­ned in the regi­ster. If the regi­ster in que­sti­on is inten­ded for con­sul­ta­ti­on by per­sons with a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest, the trans­fer should be made only at the request of tho­se per­sons or only if tho­se per­sons are the addres­sees of the trans­fer, taking full account of the inte­rests and fun­da­men­tal rights of the data subject.
(112) The­se excep­ti­ons should app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar to data trans­fers which are neces­sa­ry for important rea­sons of public inte­rest, such as the inter­na­tio­nal exch­an­ge of data bet­ween com­pe­ti­ti­on, tax or cus­toms aut­ho­ri­ties, bet­ween finan­cial super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, or bet­ween ser­vices respon­si­ble for social secu­ri­ty mat­ters or public health, for exam­p­le in the case of envi­ron­men­tal scree­ning for con­ta­gious dise­a­ses or to redu­ce and/or eli­mi­na­te doping in sport. The trans­fer of per­so­nal data should also be con­side­red lawful if it is neces­sa­ry to pro­tect an inte­rest essen­ti­al to the vital inte­rests – inclu­ding the phy­si­cal inte­gri­ty or life – of the data sub­ject or ano­ther per­son and the data sub­ject is unable to give con­sent. In the absence of an ade­qua­cy decis­i­on, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may express­ly pro­vi­de for rest­ric­tions on the trans­fer of cer­tain cate­go­ries of data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons for important rea­sons of public inte­rest. Mem­ber Sta­tes should noti­fy such pro­vi­si­ons to the Com­mis­si­on. Any trans­fer to an inter­na­tio­nal huma­ni­ta­ri­an orga­nizati­on of per­so­nal data of a data sub­ject who is phy­si­cal­ly or legal­ly inca­pa­ble of giving con­sent, in order to car­ry out a task requi­red by the Gen­e­va Con­ven­ti­ons or to com­ply with inter­na­tio­nal huma­ni­ta­ri­an law appli­ca­ble in armed con­flicts, could be con­side­red neces­sa­ry for an important rea­son rela­ting to the public inte­rest or in the vital inte­rest of the data subject.
(113) Trans­fers that can be con­side­red as not being repe­ti­ti­ve and invol­ving only a limi­t­ed num­ber of data sub­jects could also be pos­si­ble in order to safe­guard the com­pel­ling legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests of the con­trol­ler, pro­vi­ded that the inte­rests or rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject are not over­ri­ding and the con­trol­ler has con­side­red all the cir­cum­stances sur­roun­ding the data trans­fer. In par­ti­cu­lar, the con­trol­ler should take into account the natu­re of the per­so­nal data, the pur­po­se and dura­ti­on of the inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing, the situa­ti­on in the coun­try of ori­gin, in the third coun­try con­cer­ned and in the coun­try of final desti­na­ti­on, and pro­vi­de appro­pria­te safe­guards to pro­tect the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of their per­so­nal data. Such trans­fers should only be pos­si­ble in the remai­ning cases whe­re none of the other grounds for trans­fer is appli­ca­ble. In the case of sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses, legi­ti­ma­te socie­tal expec­ta­ti­ons regar­ding an increa­se in know­ledge should be taken into account. The con­trol­ler should inform the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the data sub­ject of the transfer.

Artic­le 50 Inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on for the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data

With regard to third count­ries and inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, the Com­mis­si­on and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall take appro­pria­te mea­su­res to
a) Deve­lop inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on mecha­nisms that faci­li­ta­te effec­ti­ve enforce­ment of per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion laws,
b) Mutu­al pro­vi­si­on of inter­na­tio­nal admi­ni­stra­ti­ve assi­stance in the enforce­ment of legis­la­ti­on on the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, inclu­ding through noti­fi­ca­ti­ons, com­plaint refer­rals, assi­stance in inve­sti­ga­ti­ons and exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on, pro­vi­ded that appro­pria­te safe­guards exist for the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data and other fun­da­men­tal rights and freedoms,
c) Enga­ge rele­vant stake­hol­ders in dis­cus­sions and acti­vi­ties desi­gned to enhan­ce inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on in the enforce­ment of per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion laws,
d) Pro­mo­te the exch­an­ge and docu­men­ta­ti­on of per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion legis­la­ti­on and prac­ti­ces, inclu­ding juris­dic­tion­al con­flicts with third countries.
Reci­tals
(116) When per­so­nal data are trans­fer­red to ano­ther coun­try out­side the Uni­on, the­re is an increa­sed risk that indi­vi­du­als may not be able to exer­cise their data pro­tec­tion rights and, in par­ti­cu­lar, to pro­tect them­sel­ves against the unlawful use or dis­clo­sure of that infor­ma­ti­on. Simi­lar­ly, super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties may not be able to inve­sti­ga­te com­plaints or con­duct inve­sti­ga­ti­ons that are rela­ted to acti­vi­ties out­side the bor­ders of their Mem­ber Sta­te. Their efforts to coope­ra­te across bor­ders may also be ham­pe­red by insuf­fi­ci­ent pre­ven­ti­ve and reme­di­al powers, con­flic­ting legal regimes, and prac­ti­cal obs­ta­cles such as resour­ce cons­traints. Coope­ra­ti­on among data pro­tec­tion super­vi­sors must the­r­e­fo­re be encou­ra­ged so that they can share infor­ma­ti­on and con­duct inve­sti­ga­ti­ons with super­vi­sors in other count­ries. In order to deve­lop inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on mecha­nisms to faci­li­ta­te and ensu­re inter­na­tio­nal mutu­al assi­stance in the enforce­ment of per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion laws, the Com­mis­si­on and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should exch­an­ge infor­ma­ti­on and coope­ra­te with the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties of third count­ries, on the basis of recipro­ci­ty and in accordance with this Regu­la­ti­on, in acti­vi­ties rela­ted to the exer­cise of their powers.

Chap­ter VI Inde­pen­dent super­vi­so­ry authorities

Sec­tion 1 Independence

Artic­le 51 Super­vi­so­ry authority

(Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall pro­vi­de that one or more inde­pen­dent aut­ho­ri­ties are respon­si­ble for moni­to­ring the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on in order to pro­tect the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to pro­ce­s­sing and to faci­li­ta­te the free flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on (her­ein­af­ter “Super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty„).
(2. Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall con­tri­bu­te to the con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on. To that end, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall coope­ra­te with each other and with the Com­mis­si­on in accordance with Chap­ter VII.
(3. Whe­re the­re is more than one super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in a Mem­ber Sta­te, that Mem­ber Sta­te shall desi­gna­te the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty repre­sen­ting tho­se aut­ho­ri­ties in the Com­mit­tee and shall estab­lish a pro­ce­du­re to ensu­re that the other aut­ho­ri­ties com­ply with the rules on the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism refer­red to in Artic­le 63.
(Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall noti­fy to the Com­mis­si­on, by 25 May 2018 at the latest, the pro­vi­si­ons of law which it adopts pur­su­ant to this Chap­ter and, wit­hout delay, any sub­se­quent amend­ment affec­ting them.
Reci­tals
(117) The estab­lish­ment of super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties in Mem­ber Sta­tes, empowered to exer­cise their func­tions and powers with com­ple­te inde­pen­dence, is an essen­ti­al ele­ment of the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data. Mem­ber Sta­tes should be able to estab­lish more than one super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty whe­re this is appro­pria­te to their con­sti­tu­tio­nal, orga­nizatio­nal and admi­ni­stra­ti­ve structure.
(119) Whe­re a Mem­ber Sta­te estab­lishes seve­ral super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, it should ensu­re through legis­la­ti­on that tho­se super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties are effec­tively invol­ved in the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism. In par­ti­cu­lar, that Mem­ber Sta­te should desi­gna­te a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to act as a focal point for the effec­ti­ve par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on of tho­se aut­ho­ri­ties in the mecha­nism and to ensu­re a swift and smooth coope­ra­ti­on with other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, the Board and the Commission.
(123) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should moni­tor the appli­ca­ti­on of the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on and con­tri­bu­te to its con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on in order to pro­tect natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of their data and to faci­li­ta­te the free flow of per­so­nal data in the inter­nal mar­ket. To that end, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should coope­ra­te with each other and with the Com­mis­si­on wit­hout the need for an agree­ment bet­ween Mem­ber Sta­tes on the pro­vi­si­on of mutu­al assi­stance or on such cooperation.

Artic­le 52 Independence

(1) Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall act ful­ly inde­pendent­ly in the per­for­mance of its duties and in the exer­cise of its powers under this Regulation.
(2) The mem­ber or mem­bers of each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall not be sub­ject to any out­side influence, direct or indi­rect, in the per­for­mance of their duties and the exer­cise of their powers under this Ordi­nan­ce, and shall neither seek nor take instructions.
(3) The mem­ber or mem­bers of the Super­vi­so­ry Aut­ho­ri­ty shall refrain from any action incom­pa­ti­ble with the duties of their office and shall not, during their term of office, enga­ge in any other paid or unpaid acti­vi­ty incom­pa­ti­ble with their office.
(4. Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall ensu­re that each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is pro­vi­ded with the human, tech­ni­cal and finan­cial resour­ces, pre­mi­ses and infras­truc­tu­re neces­sa­ry to car­ry out its tasks and exer­cise its powers effec­tively, inclu­ding in the con­text of mutu­al assi­stance, coope­ra­ti­on and par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the Committee.
(5. Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall ensu­re that each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty sel­ects and has its own staff, who shall be sub­ject exclu­si­ve­ly to the direc­tion of the mem­ber or mem­bers of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty concerned.
(6. Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall ensu­re that each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is sub­ject to finan­cial con­trol which does not impair its inde­pen­dence and that it has its own public annu­al bud­gets, which may form part of the over­all Sta­te or natio­nal budget.
Reci­tals
(118) The fact that the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties are inde­pen­dent should not mean that they are not sub­ject to any con­trol or moni­to­ring mecha­nism with regard to their expen­dit­u­re or that they can­not be sub­ject to judi­cial review.
(120) Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be pro­vi­ded with finan­cial resour­ces, staff, pre­mi­ses and an infras­truc­tu­re as neces­sa­ry for the effec­ti­ve per­for­mance of its tasks, inclu­ding tho­se rela­ted to mutu­al assi­stance and coope­ra­ti­on with other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties throug­hout the Uni­on. Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should have its own public annu­al bud­get, which may be part of the over­all sta­te or natio­nal budget.

Artic­le 53 Gene­ral con­di­ti­ons for the mem­bers of the Super­vi­so­ry Authority

(1. Mem­ber Sta­tes shall pro­vi­de that each mem­ber of their super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall be appoin­ted through a trans­pa­rent pro­ce­du­re as follows
by the par­lia­ment, by the govern­ment, by the head of sta­te, or by an inde­pen­dent body ent­ru­sted with the appoint­ment under the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te.
(2) Each mem­ber shall have the neces­sa­ry qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons, expe­ri­ence and exper­ti­se, in par­ti­cu­lar in the field of per­so­nal data pro­tec­tion, to per­form its duties and exer­cise its powers.
(3. The term of office of a mem­ber shall end when his or her term of office expi­res or when he or she resigns or is com­pul­so­ri­ly reti­red in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te concerned.
(4) A mem­ber shall be remo­ved from office only if he or she has com­mit­ted serious mis­con­duct or no lon­ger ful­fills the requi­re­ments for the per­for­mance of his or her duties.
Reci­tals
(121) The gene­ral requi­re­ments for the mem­ber or mem­bers of the Super­vi­so­ry Aut­ho­ri­ty should be laid down by legis­la­ti­on of each Mem­ber Sta­te and should in par­ti­cu­lar pro­vi­de that tho­se mem­bers are appoin­ted through a trans­pa­rent pro­ce­du­re eit­her by the Par­lia­ment, the Govern­ment or the Head of Sta­te of the Mem­ber Sta­te, on a pro­po­sal from the Govern­ment, a mem­ber of the Govern­ment, the Par­lia­ment or a Cham­ber of Par­lia­ment, or by an inde­pen­dent body ent­ru­sted with the appoint­ment under the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te. In order to ensu­re the inde­pen­dence of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, its mem­bers should per­form their duties with inte­gri­ty, refrain from any action incom­pa­ti­ble with the duties of their office and should not, during their term of office, enga­ge in any other occu­pa­ti­on, whe­ther gain­ful or not, which is incom­pa­ti­ble with their office. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should have its own staff, sel­ec­ted by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty its­elf or by an inde­pen­dent body estab­lished under the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te, who should be sub­ject exclu­si­ve­ly to the direc­tion of the mem­ber or mem­bers of the super­vi­so­ry authority.

Artic­le 54 Estab­lish­ment of the super­vi­so­ry authority

(1. Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall pro­vi­de by law for the following:
a) the estab­lish­ment of any super­vi­so­ry authority;
b) the neces­sa­ry qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons and other requi­re­ments for appoint­ment as a mem­ber of each super­vi­so­ry authority;
c) the rules and pro­ce­du­res for the appoint­ment of the mem­ber or mem­bers of each super­vi­so­ry authority;
d) the term of office of the mem­ber or mem­bers of each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of at least four years; this shall not app­ly to the first term of office after May 24, 2016, which may be shorter for some of the mem­bers if a stag­ge­red appoint­ment is neces­sa­ry to pre­ser­ve the inde­pen­dence of the super­vi­so­ry authority;
e) the que­sti­on of whe­ther and, if so, how often the mem­ber or mem­bers of each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may be reappointed;
f) the con­di­ti­ons rela­ting to the duties of the mem­ber or mem­bers and the staff of each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the pro­hi­bi­ti­ons of acts, pro­fes­sio­nal acti­vi­ties and remu­ne­ra­ti­on during and after the term of office that are incom­pa­ti­ble with the­se duties, and the rules for ter­mi­na­ti­on of employment.
(2. The mem­ber or mem­bers and the staff of each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall, in accordance with Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, obser­ve pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy with regard to all con­fi­den­ti­al infor­ma­ti­on which has come to their know­ledge in the cour­se of the per­for­mance of their duties or the exer­cise of their powers, both during and after their term of office. During that peri­od of office or ser­vice, that obli­ga­ti­on of sec­re­cy shall app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar to inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on repor­ted by natu­ral persons.

Sec­tion 2 Respon­si­bi­li­ty, Duties and Powers

Artic­le 55 Competence

(1. Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall be com­pe­tent to car­ry out the tasks and exer­cise the powers con­fer­red on it by this Regu­la­ti­on within the ter­ri­to­ry of its own Mem­ber State.
Whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by public aut­ho­ri­ties or pri­va­te bodies on the basis of Artic­le 6(1)(c) or (e), the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned shall be com­pe­tent. In that case, Artic­le 56 shall not apply.
(3) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall not be com­pe­tent to super­vi­se pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons car­ri­ed out by courts in the cour­se of their judi­cial activities.
Reci­tals
(122) Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be com­pe­tent to exer­cise the powers and car­ry out the tasks con­fer­red on it by this Regu­la­ti­on within the ter­ri­to­ry of its Mem­ber Sta­te. This should app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar to the following:
pro­ce­s­sing in the cour­se of the acti­vi­ties of an estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the ter­ri­to­ry of their Mem­ber Sta­te, the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data by public aut­ho­ri­ties or pri­va­te bodies acting in the public inte­rest, pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties which have an impact on data sub­jects on their ter­ri­to­ry, or pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties of a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor not estab­lished in the Uni­on, pro­vi­ded that they are tar­ge­ted at data sub­jects resi­ding on their ter­ri­to­ry. This should also include hand­ling com­plaints from a data sub­ject, con­duc­ting inve­sti­ga­ti­ons into the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on and pro­mo­ting infor­ma­ti­on to the public on the risks, rules, safe­guards and rights rela­ting to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data.
(128) The rules on the lead aut­ho­ri­ty and the coope­ra­ti­on and con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism should not app­ly whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by public aut­ho­ri­ties or pri­va­te bodies in the public inte­rest. In such cases, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the public aut­ho­ri­ty or pri­va­te body is estab­lished should be the only super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent to exer­cise the powers con­fer­red on it by this Regulation.

Artic­le 56 Com­pe­tence of the lead super­vi­so­ry authority

(Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to Artic­le 55, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the main estab­lish­ment or the sin­gle estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall be the com­pe­tent lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty for the cross-bor­der pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out by that con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in accordance with the pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 60.
(By way of dero­ga­ti­on from para­graph 1, each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall be com­pe­tent to deal with a com­plaint lodged with it or a pos­si­ble inf­rin­ge­ment of this Regu­la­ti­on if the sub­ject mat­ter rela­tes only to an estab­lish­ment in its Mem­ber Sta­te or signi­fi­cant­ly affects data sub­jects only of its Mem­ber State.
(In the cases refer­red to in para­graph 2 of this Artic­le, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall wit­hout delay inform the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the mat­ter. Within a peri­od of three weeks after being infor­med, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall deci­de whe­ther or not to deal with the case in accordance with the pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 60, taking into account whe­ther or not the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has an estab­lish­ment in the Mem­ber Sta­te who­se super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has infor­med it.
(4. If the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty deci­des to deal with the case, the pro­ce­du­re laid down in Artic­le 60 shall app­ly. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty which has infor­med the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may sub­mit a draft decis­i­on to the lat­ter. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall take the utmost account of that draft when pre­pa­ring the draft decis­i­on refer­red to in Artic­le 60(3).
(5) If the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty deci­des not to deal with the case its­elf, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty which infor­med the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall deal with the case in accordance with Artic­les 61 and 62.
(6) The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall be the sin­gle point of cont­act of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors for issues rela­ted to cross-bor­der pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out by that con­trol­ler or processor.
Reci­tals
(124) Whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data takes place in the con­text of the acti­vi­ties of an estab­lish­ment of a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on and the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has estab­lish­ments in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ty in the con­text of the acti­vi­ties of a sin­gle estab­lish­ment of a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the Uni­on has or is likely to have a signi­fi­cant impact on data sub­jects in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty for the main estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor or for the sin­gle estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should act as lead aut­ho­ri­ty. is likely to have such an impact, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty for the main estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor or for the sin­gle estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should act as the lead aut­ho­ri­ty. It should coope­ra­te with the other aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned becau­se the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has an estab­lish­ment on the ter­ri­to­ry of its Mem­ber Sta­te, becau­se the pro­ce­s­sing has a signi­fi­cant impact on data sub­jects resi­ding on its ter­ri­to­ry or becau­se a com­plaint has been lodged with them. Also, whe­re a data sub­ject not resi­ding in the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned has lodged a com­plaint, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which the com­plaint has been lodged should also be a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned. The Board should be able to issue gui­dance – as part of its tasks in rela­ti­on to issuing gui­dance on all issues rela­ted to the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on – in par­ti­cu­lar on the cri­te­ria to be taken into account when deter­mi­ning whe­ther the pro­ce­s­sing in que­sti­on has a signi­fi­cant impact on data sub­jects in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te and what con­sti­tu­tes a rele­vant and well-foun­ded objection.
(125) The lead aut­ho­ri­ty should be entit­led to adopt bin­ding decis­i­ons on mea­su­res exer­cis­ing the powers con­fer­red on it under this Regu­la­ti­on. In its capa­ci­ty as lead aut­ho­ri­ty, that super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should ensu­re the clo­se invol­vement and coor­di­na­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned in the decis­i­on-making pro­cess. Whe­re it is deci­ded to reject the com­plaint of the data sub­ject in who­le or in part, that decis­i­on should be adopted by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty with which the com­plaint was lodged.
(127) Any super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty other than the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be com­pe­tent in local cases whe­re the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has estab­lish­ments in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te but the sub­ject-mat­ter of the spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing con­cerns only pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties in one Mem­ber Sta­te and only data sub­jects in that one Mem­ber Sta­te, for exam­p­le whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing con­cerns per­so­nal data of employees in the spe­ci­fic employment con­text of one Mem­ber Sta­te. In such cases, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should inform the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the mat­ter wit­hout delay. Fol­lo­wing its noti­fi­ca­ti­on, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should deci­de whe­ther it will deal with the case in accordance with the pro­vi­si­ons on coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned under the pro­vi­si­on on coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned (her­ein­af­ter “Coope­ra­ti­on and cohe­rence pro­ce­du­res”) or whe­ther the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty which infor­med it should sett­le the case at local level. In doing so, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should take into account whe­ther the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has an estab­lish­ment in the Mem­ber Sta­te who­se super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has infor­med it, so that decis­i­ons are effec­tively enforced against the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor. If the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty deci­des to sett­le the case its­elf, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty which infor­med it should have the pos­si­bi­li­ty to sub­mit a draft decis­i­on, which the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should take into account to the grea­test ext­ent pos­si­ble when pre­pa­ring its draft decis­i­on under this coope­ra­ti­on and con­si­sten­cy procedure.
(130) Whe­re the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty with which the com­plaint has been lodged is not the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should coope­ra­te clo­se­ly with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty with which the com­plaint has been lodged in accordance with the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on on coope­ra­ti­on and con­si­sten­cy. In such cases, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should take the utmost account of the posi­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty with which the com­plaint has been lodged, which should retain the power to con­duct inve­sti­ga­ti­ons on the ter­ri­to­ry of its own Mem­ber Sta­te in coor­di­na­ti­on with the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, when taking mea­su­res inten­ded to pro­du­ce legal effects, inclu­ding the impo­si­ti­on of fines.
(131) Whe­re ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should act as the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty for the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, but the spe­ci­fic sub­ject mat­ter of a com­plaint or the pos­si­ble breach con­cerns only the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the com­plaint was lodged or the pos­si­ble breach was dis­co­ver­ed, and the mat­ter does not have or is not likely to have a signi­fi­cant impact on data sub­jects in other Mem­ber Sta­tes, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which a com­plaint was lodged or which dis­co­ver­ed or was other­wi­se infor­med of situa­tions con­sti­tu­ting pos­si­ble brea­ches of this Regu­la­ti­on should has been other­wi­se infor­med about it, should attempt to reach an amica­ble sett­le­ment with the con­trol­ler; if this pro­ves unsuc­cessful, it should exer­cise the full ran­ge of its powers. This should include: pro­ce­s­sing spe­ci­fi­cal­ly on the ter­ri­to­ry of the Mem­ber Sta­te of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or with regard to data sub­jects on the ter­ri­to­ry of that Mem­ber Sta­te; pro­ce­s­sing in the con­text of an offer of goods or ser­vices spe­ci­fi­cal­ly tar­ge­ted at data sub­jects on the ter­ri­to­ry of the Mem­ber Sta­te of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty; or pro­ce­s­sing which must be asses­sed in the light of the rele­vant legal obli­ga­ti­ons under the law of the Mem­ber States.

Artic­le 57 Tasks

(1. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to other tasks set out in this Regu­la­ti­on, each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty within its ter­ri­to­ry shall
a) moni­tor and enforce the appli­ca­ti­on of this regulation;
b) Rai­se awa­re­ness and edu­ca­te the public about the risks, rules, safe­guards and rights rela­ted to pro­ce­s­sing. Spe­cial atten­ti­on will be paid to spe­ci­fic mea­su­res for children;
c) in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te, advi­se the natio­nal par­lia­ment, govern­ment and other insti­tu­ti­ons and bodies on legis­la­ti­ve and admi­ni­stra­ti­ve mea­su­res to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons with regard to processing;
d) Rai­se awa­re­ness among data con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors of the obli­ga­ti­ons impo­sed on them by this Regulation;
e) pro­vi­de, upon request, infor­ma­ti­on to any data sub­ject on the exer­cise of his or her rights under this Regu­la­ti­on and, whe­re appro­pria­te, coope­ra­te with super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties in other Mem­ber Sta­tes for this purpose;
f) deal with com­plaints lodged by a data sub­ject or com­plaints lodged by a body, orga­nizati­on or asso­cia­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 80, inve­sti­ga­te the sub­ject mat­ter of the com­plaint to a rea­sonable ext­ent and inform the com­plainant of the pro­gress and out­co­me of the inve­sti­ga­ti­on within a rea­sonable peri­od of time, in par­ti­cu­lar if fur­ther inve­sti­ga­ti­on or coor­di­na­ti­on with ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is necessary;
g) coope­ra­te with and pro­vi­de assi­stance to other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, inclu­ding through the exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on, to ensu­re the con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on and enforce­ment of this Regulation;o
h) Con­duct inve­sti­ga­ti­ons into the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, inclu­ding on the basis of infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded by ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or ano­ther authority;
i) moni­tor rele­vant deve­lo­p­ments inso­far as they have an impact on the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, in par­ti­cu­lar the deve­lo­p­ment of infor­ma­ti­on and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy and busi­ness practices;
j) estab­lish stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses within the mea­ning of Artic­le 28(8) and Artic­le 46(2)(d);
k) estab­lish and main­tain a list of the types of pro­ce­s­sing for which a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment is to be car­ri­ed out pur­su­ant to Artic­le 35(4);
l) Pro­vi­de advice in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons refer­red to in Artic­le 36(2);
m) pro­mo­te the deve­lo­p­ment of codes of con­duct refer­red to in Artic­le 40(1) and issue opi­ni­ons on and appro­ve such codes of con­duct, which shall pro­vi­de suf­fi­ci­ent safe­guards as refer­red to in Artic­le 40(5);
n) encou­ra­ge the estab­lish­ment of data pro­tec­tion cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on mecha­nisms and data pro­tec­tion seals and marks in accordance with Artic­le 42(1) and endor­se cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on cri­te­ria in accordance with Artic­le 42(5);
o) peri­odi­cal­ly review, as appro­pria­te, the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons issued pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42(7);
p) draft and publish the cri­te­ria for accre­di­ta­ti­on of a body for moni­to­ring com­pli­ance with the rules of con­duct pur­su­ant to Artic­le 41 and a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body pur­su­ant to Artic­le 43;
q) car­ry out the accre­di­ta­ti­on of a body for moni­to­ring com­pli­ance with the rules of con­duct pur­su­ant to Artic­le 41 and a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body pur­su­ant to Artic­le 43;
r) Appro­ve con­trac­tu­al clau­ses and pro­vi­si­ons refer­red to in Artic­le 46(3);
s) appro­ve bin­ding inter­nal rules in accordance with Artic­le 47;
t) Con­tri­bu­te to the acti­vi­ties of the Committee;
u) inter­nal records of inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on and mea­su­res taken pur­su­ant to Artic­le 58(2); and
v) per­form any other task rela­ted to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data.
(2) Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall faci­li­ta­te the sub­mis­si­on of com­plaints refer­red to in para­graph (1)(f) by taking mea­su­res such as pro­vi­ding a com­plaint form that may also be com­ple­ted elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, wit­hout exclu­ding other means of communication.
(3) The per­for­mance of the tasks of each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall be free of char­ge for the data sub­ject and, if appli­ca­ble, for the data pro­tec­tion officer.
(4) In the case of mani­fest­ly unfoun­ded or – espe­ci­al­ly in the case of fre­quent repe­ti­ti­on – exce­s­si­ve requests, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may char­ge a rea­sonable fee based on the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve costs or refu­se to act on the request. In this case, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall bear the bur­den of pro­ving the mani­fest­ly unfoun­ded or exce­s­si­ve natu­re of the request.
Reci­tals
(132) Awa­re­ness-rai­sing acti­vi­ties by super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties aimed at the public should include spe­ci­fic mea­su­res tar­ge­ting con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors, inclu­ding micro, small and medi­um-sized enter­pri­ses, and natu­ral per­sons, in par­ti­cu­lar in the edu­ca­ti­on sector.

Artic­le 58 Powers

(1) Each regu­la­to­ry agen­cy shall have all of the fol­lo­wing inve­sti­ga­ti­ve powers that per­mit it,
a) ins­truct the con­trol­ler, pro­ces­sor and, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the controller’s or processor’s repre­sen­ta­ti­ve to pro­vi­de all infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of their tasks,
b) Con­duct inve­sti­ga­ti­ons in the form of data pro­tec­tion reviews,
c) con­duct a review of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons issued under Artic­le 42(7),
d) draw the atten­ti­on of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to an alle­ged breach of this Regulation,
e) obtain from the Con­trol­ler and the Pro­ces­sor access to all per­so­nal data and infor­ma­ti­on neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of their tasks,
f) in accordance with Uni­on pro­ce­du­ral law or the pro­ce­du­ral law of the Mem­ber Sta­te, to have access to the busi­ness pre­mi­ses, inclu­ding all data pro­ce­s­sing faci­li­ties and equip­ment, of the con­trol­ler and processor.
(2) Each regu­la­to­ry agen­cy shall have all of the fol­lo­wing reme­di­al powers that per­mit it,
a) warn a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor that inten­ded pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons are likely to inf­rin­ge this Regulation,
b) to warn a con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor if it has vio­la­ted this Regu­la­ti­on with pro­ce­s­sing operations,
c) ins­truct the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to com­ply with the data subject’s requests to exer­cise the rights to which he or she is entit­led under this Regulation,
d) ins­truct the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to bring pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons into com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, as appro­pria­te, in a spe­ci­fic man­ner and within a spe­ci­fic peri­od of time,
e) ins­truct the data con­trol­ler to noti­fy the data sub­ject of a per­so­nal data breach accordingly,
f) impo­se a tem­po­ra­ry or per­ma­nent rest­ric­tion on pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding a ban,
g) order the rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or era­su­re of per­so­nal data or the rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to Artic­les 16, 17 and 18 and the noti­fi­ca­ti­on of such mea­su­res to the reci­pi­en­ts to whom such per­so­nal data have been dis­c­lo­sed pur­su­ant to Artic­le 17(2) and Artic­le 19,
h) revo­ke a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or direct the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body to revo­ke a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on gran­ted under Artic­les 42 and 43, or direct the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body not to grant a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on if the requi­re­ments for cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on are not or are no lon­ger met,
i) impo­se a fine in accordance with Artic­le 83, in addi­ti­on to or instead of mea­su­res refer­red to in this para­graph, depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances of the case,
j) order the sus­pen­si­on of the trans­fer of data to a reci­pi­ent in a third coun­try or to an inter­na­tio­nal organization.
(3) Each regu­la­to­ry agen­cy shall have all of the fol­lo­wing appr­oval powers and advi­so­ry powers that per­mit it,
a) in accordance with the pri­or con­sul­ta­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 36, to advi­se the respon­si­ble person,
b) to issue opi­ni­ons on any mat­ter rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, on its own initia­ti­ve or upon request, to the natio­nal par­lia­ment, the govern­ment of the Mem­ber Sta­te or, in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te, to other insti­tu­ti­ons and bodies, as well as to the public,
c) aut­ho­ri­ze the pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to Artic­le 36(5) if such pri­or aut­ho­rizati­on is requi­red by the law of the Mem­ber State,
d) to give an opi­ni­on and appro­ve draft codes of con­duct in accordance with Artic­le 40(5),
e) Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies to be accre­di­ted in accordance with Artic­le 43,
f) issue cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons and appro­ve cri­te­ria for cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on in accordance with Artic­le 42(5),
g) estab­lish stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses in accordance with Artic­le 28(8) and Artic­le 46(2)(d),
h) Appro­ve con­tract clau­ses pur­su­ant to Artic­le 46(3)(a),
i) Appro­ve admi­ni­stra­ti­ve arran­ge­ments pur­su­ant to Artic­le 46(3)(b)
j) appro­ve bin­ding inter­nal rules in accordance with Artic­le 47.
(4. The exer­cise of the powers con­fer­red on the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty under this Artic­le shall be sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards, inclu­ding effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dies and due pro­cess, in accordance with Uni­on law and the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te, in com­pli­ance with the Charter.
(5. Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall pro­vi­de by law that its super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall have the power to bring inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on to the atten­ti­on of the judi­cial aut­ho­ri­ties and, whe­re appro­pria­te, to insti­tu­te or other­wi­se par­ti­ci­pa­te in legal pro­ce­e­dings to enforce the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regulation.
(6. Each Mem­ber Sta­te may pro­vi­de by law that its super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall have powers addi­tio­nal to tho­se listed in para­graphs 1, 2 and 3. The exer­cise of the­se powers shall not impair the effec­ti­ve imple­men­ta­ti­on of Chap­ter VII.
Reci­tals
(129) In order to ensu­re con­si­stent moni­to­ring and enforce­ment of this Regu­la­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should have the same tasks and effec­ti­ve powers in each Mem­ber Sta­te, inclu­ding, in par­ti­cu­lar in the case of com­plaints by indi­vi­du­als, powers of inve­sti­ga­ti­on, reme­di­al powers and powers to impo­se sanc­tions and aut­ho­rizati­ons and advi­so­ry powers, as well as, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the powers of law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties under the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, the power to bring inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on to the atten­ti­on of judi­cial aut­ho­ri­ties and to initia­te judi­cial pro­ce­e­dings. This should also include the power to impo­se a tem­po­ra­ry or defi­ni­ti­ve rest­ric­tion on pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding a ban. Mem­ber Sta­tes may deter­mi­ne other tasks rela­ted to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data under this Regu­la­ti­on. The powers of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should be exer­cis­ed impar­ti­al­ly, fair­ly and within a rea­sonable time, in accordance with the appro­pria­te pro­ce­du­ral safe­guards under Uni­on and Mem­ber Sta­te law. In par­ti­cu­lar, any mea­su­re should be appro­pria­te, neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te with a view to ensu­ring com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account the cir­cum­stances of each indi­vi­du­al case, respec­ting the right of every per­son to be heard befo­re any indi­vi­du­al mea­su­re is taken which would have an adver­se effect on that per­son, and avo­i­ding unneces­sa­ry costs and exce­s­si­ve incon­ve­ni­ence for data sub­jects. Inve­sti­ga­to­ry powers with regard to access to pre­mi­ses should be exer­cis­ed in accordance with spe­ci­fic requi­re­ments in the pro­ce­du­ral law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, such as the requi­re­ment of pri­or judi­cial aut­ho­rizati­on. Any legal­ly bin­ding mea­su­re of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be issued in wri­ting and it should be clear and unam­bi­guous; the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty that issued the mea­su­re and the date on which the mea­su­re was issued should be indi­ca­ted and the mea­su­re should be signed by the head or by a mem­ber of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty aut­ho­ri­zed by him or her and should con­tain a justi­fi­ca­ti­on for the mea­su­re and a refe­rence to the right to an effec­ti­ve reme­dy. This should not pre­clude addi­tio­nal requi­re­ments under the pro­ce­du­ral law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes. The adop­ti­on of a legal­ly bin­ding decis­i­on requi­res that it be sub­ject to judi­cial review in the Mem­ber Sta­te of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty that adopted the decision.

Artic­le 59 Acti­vi­ty report

Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall draw up an annu­al report on its acti­vi­ties, which may include a list of the types of inf­rin­ge­ments repor­ted and the types of mea­su­res taken pur­su­ant to Artic­le 58(2). The­se reports shall be sent to the natio­nal par­lia­ment, the govern­ment and other aut­ho­ri­ties desi­gna­ted under the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes. They shall be made available to the public, the Com­mis­si­on and the Committee. 

Chap­ter VII Coope­ra­ti­on and coherence

Sec­tion 1 Cooperation

Artic­le 60 Coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties concerned

(1. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall coope­ra­te with the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned in accordance with this Artic­le, endea­voring to reach con­sen­sus. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned shall exch­an­ge among them­sel­ves all rele­vant information.
(2. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may at any time request assi­stance from other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned in accordance with Artic­le 61 and car­ry out joint actions in accordance with Artic­le 62, in par­ti­cu­lar to car­ry out inve­sti­ga­ti­ons or moni­tor the imple­men­ta­ti­on of a mea­su­re in rela­ti­on to a con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor estab­lished in ano­ther Mem­ber State.
(3. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall, wit­hout undue delay, pro­vi­de the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned with the rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on on the mat­ter. It shall wit­hout delay sub­mit a draft decis­i­on to the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned for their opi­ni­on and take due account of their views.
(4. If one of the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned rai­ses an aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and rea­so­ned objec­tion to that draft decis­i­on within four weeks of being con­sul­ted in accordance with para­graph 3 of this Artic­le and the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty does not join the aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and rea­so­ned objec­tion or con­siders that the objec­tion is not aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve or not rea­so­ned, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall initia­te the con­si­sten­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 63 for the matter.
(5) If the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty intends to join the aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and rea­so­ned objec­tion, it shall sub­mit a revi­sed draft decis­i­on to the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned for their opi­ni­on. The revi­sed draft decis­i­on shall be sub­jec­ted to the pro­ce­du­re under para­graph 4 within two weeks.
(If none of the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned objects to the draft decis­i­on sub­mit­ted by the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty within the peri­od spe­ci­fi­ed in para­graphs 4 and 5, the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned shall be dee­med to agree with the draft decis­i­on and shall be bound by it.
(7. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall adopt the decis­i­on and noti­fy it to the main or sin­gle estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, as the case may be, and shall inform the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned and the Board of the decis­i­on in que­sti­on, inclu­ding a sum­ma­ry of the rele­vant facts and rea­sons. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which a com­plaint has been lodged shall inform the com­plainant of the decision.
(8) If a com­plaint is rejec­ted or dis­missed, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which the com­plaint was filed shall, not­wi­th­stan­ding para­graph (7), issue the decis­i­on, noti­fy the com­plainant the­reof and inform the per­son responsible.
(9. Whe­re the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned agree to reject or dis­miss parts of the com­plaint and to take action in respect of other parts of that com­plaint, a sepa­ra­te decis­i­on shall be adopted on that mat­ter for each of tho­se parts. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall adopt the decis­i­on for the part con­cer­ning action in respect of the con­trol­ler, noti­fy it to the main or only estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the ter­ri­to­ry of its Mem­ber Sta­te and inform the com­plainant the­reof, while the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty respon­si­ble for the com­plainant shall adopt the decis­i­on for the part con­cer­ning the rejec­tion or dis­mis­sal of that com­plaint and noti­fy it to that com­plainant and inform the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor thereof.
(10. After being infor­med of the decis­i­on of the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pur­su­ant to para­graphs 7 and 9, the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall take the neces­sa­ry mea­su­res to bring the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties of all its estab­lish­ments in the Uni­on into com­pli­ance with the decis­i­on. The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall noti­fy the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the mea­su­res taken to com­ply with the decis­i­on, which shall in turn noti­fy the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties concerned.
(11) If – in excep­tio­nal cases – a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned has rea­son to belie­ve that the­re is an urgent need to act to pro­tect the inte­rests of data sub­jects, the urgen­cy pro­ce­du­re under Artic­le 66 shall apply.
(12. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned shall pro­vi­de each other with the infor­ma­ti­on requi­red under this Artic­le by elec­tro­nic means using a stan­dar­di­zed format.
Reci­tals
(126) The decis­i­on should be joint­ly agreed by the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned and should be addres­sed to the main estab­lish­ment or the sin­gle estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor and should be bin­ding on the con­trol­ler and the pro­ces­sor. The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should take the neces­sa­ry mea­su­res to ensu­re com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on and the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the decis­i­on noti­fi­ed by the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to the main estab­lish­ment of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing acti­vi­ties in the Union.

Artic­le 61 Mutu­al assistance

(1. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall pro­vi­de each other with rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on and mutu­al assi­stance in order to imple­ment and app­ly this Regu­la­ti­on con­sist­ent­ly and shall make arran­ge­ments for effec­ti­ve coope­ra­ti­on. Mutu­al assi­stance shall in par­ti­cu­lar cover requests for infor­ma­ti­on and super­vi­so­ry mea­su­res, such as requests for pri­or aut­ho­rizati­ons and pri­or con­sul­ta­ti­on, inspec­tions and investigations.
(2) Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall take all appro­pria­te mea­su­res to com­ply with a request from ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty wit­hout undue delay and at the latest within one month of rece­ipt of the request. This may include, in par­ti­cu­lar, pro­vi­ding rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on on the con­duct of an investigation.
(3) Requests for assi­stance shall con­tain all neces­sa­ry infor­ma­ti­on, inclu­ding the pur­po­se and justi­fi­ca­ti­on of the request. The infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded shall be used sole­ly for the pur­po­se for which it was requested.
(4) The reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall refu­se the request only if
a) it is not com­pe­tent for the sub­ject mat­ter of the request or for the mea­su­res it is to car­ry out, or
b) respon­ding to the request would be con­tra­ry to this Regu­la­ti­on or to Uni­on law or the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes to which the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty recei­ving the request is subject.
(5. The reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall inform the reque­st­ing super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of the results or, as the case may be, of the pro­gress of the mea­su­res taken to com­ply with the request. The reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall explain the rea­sons for refu­sing the request in accordance with para­graph 4.
(6. The reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall, as a rule, pro­vi­de the infor­ma­ti­on reque­sted by ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty by elec­tro­nic means using a stan­dar­di­zed format.
(7) Reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall not char­ge fees for mea­su­res taken on the basis of a request for assi­stance. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties may agree among them­sel­ves on rules to reim­bur­se each other in excep­tio­nal cases for spe­cial expen­ses incur­red as a result of mutu­al assistance.
8. Whe­re a reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty does not pro­vi­de the infor­ma­ti­on refer­red to in para­graph 5 within one month of rece­ipt of the request from ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the reque­st­ing super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may take a pro­vi­sio­nal mea­su­re within the ter­ri­to­ry of its Mem­ber Sta­te in accordance with Artic­le 55(1). In that case, the need for urgent action refer­red to in Artic­le 66(1) shall be dee­med to requi­re a bin­ding decis­i­on of the Com­mit­tee adopted under the urgen­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 66(2).
(9. The Com­mis­si­on may, by means of imple­men­ting acts, spe­ci­fy the form and pro­ce­du­res for mutu­al assi­stance under this Artic­le and the arran­ge­ments for the elec­tro­nic exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and the Board, in par­ti­cu­lar the stan­dar­di­zed for­mat refer­red to in para­graph 6 of this Artic­le. Tho­se imple­men­ting acts shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).
Reci­tals
(133) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties should assist each other in the per­for­mance of their duties and pro­vi­de mutu­al assi­stance in order to ensu­re con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on and enforce­ment of this Regu­la­ti­on in the inter­nal mar­ket. A super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty which has reque­sted mutu­al assi­stance may adopt a pro­vi­sio­nal mea­su­re if it has not recei­ved a rep­ly from the reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty within one month of rece­ipt of the request for mutu­al assi­stance by the reque­sted super­vi­so­ry authority.

Artic­le 62 Joint actions by super­vi­so­ry authorities

(1. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall, whe­re appro­pria­te, con­duct joint ope­ra­ti­ons, inclu­ding joint inve­sti­ga­ti­ons and joint enforce­ment ope­ra­ti­ons, invol­ving mem­bers or staff of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties of other Mem­ber States.
(2. Whe­re the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has estab­lish­ments in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te or whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons are likely to have a signi­fi­cant impact on a sub­stan­ti­al num­ber of data sub­jects in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of each of tho­se Mem­ber Sta­tes shall be entit­led to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the joint actions. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent pur­su­ant to Artic­le 56(1) or (4) shall invi­te the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of each of tho­se Mem­ber Sta­tes to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the joint actions and shall respond wit­hout delay to the request of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to participate.
(3. A super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may, in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te and with the appr­oval of the assi­sting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, dele­ga­te powers, inclu­ding inve­sti­ga­to­ry powers, to the mem­bers or staff of the assi­sting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty invol­ved in the joint ope­ra­ti­ons or, to the ext­ent per­mit­ted by the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te of the invi­ting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, allow the mem­bers or staff of the assi­sting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to exer­cise their inve­sti­ga­to­ry powers in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te of the assi­sting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty. Tho­se inve­sti­ga­ti­ve powers may only be exer­cis­ed under the direc­tion and in the pre­sence of the mem­bers or staff of the invi­ting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty. The mem­bers or staff of the assi­sting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall be sub­ject to the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te of the invi­ting super­vi­so­ry authority.
(Whe­re, in accordance with para­graph 1, staff of a sup­port­ing super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty are on mis­si­on in ano­ther Mem­ber Sta­te, the Mem­ber Sta­te of the host super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall assu­me respon­si­bi­li­ty for their actions, inclu­ding lia­bi­li­ty for any dama­ge cau­sed by them during their mis­si­on, in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te on who­se ter­ri­to­ry the mis­si­on takes place.
(5. The Mem­ber Sta­te in who­se ter­ri­to­ry the dama­ge was cau­sed shall make good such dama­ge in the same way as it would have had to make good such dama­ge if its own offi­ci­als had cau­sed it. The Mem­ber Sta­te of the assi­sting super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty who­se staff have cau­sed dama­ge to a per­son in the ter­ri­to­ry of ano­ther Mem­ber Sta­te shall reim­bur­se that other Mem­ber Sta­te for the total amount of com­pen­sa­ti­on paid by it to the per­sons entitled.
(Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the exer­cise of its rights vis-à-vis third par­ties and with the excep­ti­on of para­graph 5, each Mem­ber Sta­te shall refrain, in the case refer­red to in para­graph 1, from clai­ming from other Mem­ber Sta­tes the amount of the dama­ge suf­fe­r­ed refer­red to in para­graph 4.
(7. Whe­re joint action is envi­sa­ged and a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty does not com­ply with the obli­ga­ti­on refer­red to in the second sen­tence of para­graph 2 of this Artic­le within one month, the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties may take inte­rim mea­su­res within the ter­ri­to­ry of their Mem­ber Sta­te in accordance with Artic­le 55. In that case, the need for urgent action refer­red to in Artic­le 66(1) shall be dee­med to requi­re an opi­ni­on adopted under the urgen­cy pro­ce­du­re or a bin­ding decis­i­on of the Com­mit­tee adopted under the urgen­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 66(2).
Reci­tals
(134) Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should, whe­re appro­pria­te, par­ti­ci­pa­te in joint actions by other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. The reque­sted super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be requi­red to respond to the request within a spe­ci­fi­ed peri­od of time.

Sec­tion 2 Coherence

Artic­le 63 Cohe­rence procedure

In order to con­tri­bu­te to the con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall coope­ra­te with each other and, whe­re appro­pria­te, with the Com­mis­si­on through the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism descri­bed in this sec­tion.
Reci­tals
(135) In order to ensu­re the con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on, a pro­ce­du­re to ensu­re con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on of the law (con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism) should be estab­lished for coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. That pro­ce­du­re should app­ly, in par­ti­cu­lar, whe­re a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty intends to adopt a mea­su­re inten­ded to pro­du­ce legal effects in rela­ti­on to pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons which pro­du­ce signi­fi­cant effects for a sub­stan­ti­al num­ber of data sub­jects in seve­ral Mem­ber Sta­tes. It should also app­ly whe­re a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned or the Com­mis­si­on requests that the mat­ter be dealt with under the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism. This pro­ce­du­re should be wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to other mea­su­res that the Com­mis­si­on may take in the exer­cise of its powers under the Treaties.
(136) When app­ly­ing the con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism, the Board should, if so deci­ded by a majo­ri­ty of its mem­bers or if reque­sted by ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned or by the Com­mis­si­on, issue an opi­ni­on within a spe­ci­fi­ed peri­od. The Com­mit­tee should also be given the power to adopt legal­ly bin­ding decis­i­ons in the event of dis­pu­tes bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. To that end, it should, in prin­ci­ple, adopt legal­ly bin­ding decis­i­ons by a two-thirds majo­ri­ty of its mem­bers in cle­ar­ly iden­ti­fi­ed cases whe­re super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties take con­flic­ting posi­ti­ons on the facts of the case, in par­ti­cu­lar on the que­sti­on of whe­ther the­re has been an inf­rin­ge­ment of this Regu­la­ti­on, in par­ti­cu­lar in the con­text of the coope­ra­ti­on pro­ce­du­re bet­ween the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties concerned.
(138) The appli­ca­ti­on of this pro­ce­du­re should be a con­di­ti­on for the lega­li­ty of a mea­su­re taken by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to pro­du­ce legal effects in cases whe­re it is man­da­to­ry. In other cases of cross-bor­der rele­van­ce, the coope­ra­ti­on pro­ce­du­re bet­ween the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned should app­ly and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned may pro­vi­de assi­stance and car­ry out joint actions on a bila­te­ral or mul­ti­la­te­ral basis wit­hout recour­se to the con­si­sten­cy mechanism.

Artic­le 64 Opi­ni­on Committee

(1. The Com­mit­tee shall deli­ver an opi­ni­on whe­re the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty intends to adopt any of the fol­lo­wing mea­su­res. For that pur­po­se, the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall send the draft decis­i­on to the Com­mit­tee when it is
a) ser­ves to adopt a list of pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons sub­ject to the requi­re­ment of a data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment pur­su­ant to Artic­le 35(4),
b) a mat­ter refer­red to in Artic­le 40(7) and thus con­cerns whe­ther a draft code of con­duct or an amend­ment or addi­ti­on to a code of con­duct com­plies with this Regulation,
c) ser­ves to appro­ve the cri­te­ria for accre­di­ta­ti­on of a body refer­red to in Artic­le 41(3) or a cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body refer­red to in Artic­le 43(3),
d) ser­ves to estab­lish stan­dard data pro­tec­tion clau­ses pur­su­ant to Artic­le 46(2)(d) and Artic­le 28(8),
e) ser­ves to appro­ve con­trac­tu­al clau­ses in accordance with Artic­le 46(3)(a), or
f) ser­ves the adop­ti­on of bin­ding inter­nal rules within the mea­ning of Artic­le 47.
(2. Any super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the Chair of the Com­mit­tee or the Com­mis­si­on may request that a mat­ter of gene­ral appli­ca­ti­on or with impli­ca­ti­ons in more than one Mem­ber Sta­te be exami­ned by the Com­mit­tee in order to obtain an opi­ni­on, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re a com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty fails to com­ply with the obli­ga­ti­ons to pro­vi­de assi­stance under Artic­le 61 or to take joint action under Artic­le 62.
(3) In the cases refer­red to in para­graphs (1) and (2), the Com­mit­tee shall issue an opi­ni­on on the mat­ter refer­red to it, unless it has alre­a­dy issued an opi­ni­on on the same mat­ter. This opi­ni­on shall be adopted within eight weeks by a simp­le majo­ri­ty of the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee. This peri­od may be exten­ded by a fur­ther six weeks, taking into account the com­ple­xi­ty of the mat­ter. With regard to the draft decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1, which shall be com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee in accordance with para­graph 5, a mem­ber who has not objec­ted within a rea­sonable peri­od indi­ca­ted by the Chair shall be dee­med to have appro­ved the draft decision.
(The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and the Com­mis­si­on shall, wit­hout undue delay, trans­mit elec­tro­ni­cal­ly to the Board, using a stan­dar­di­zed for­mat, all rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on, inclu­ding, as appro­pria­te, a brief state­ment of the facts, the draft decis­i­on, the rea­sons why such action is neces­sa­ry and the views of other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties concerned.
(5) The chair of the com­mit­tee shall imme­dia­te­ly inform by elec­tro­nic means
a) using a stan­dar­di­zed for­mat, the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee and the Com­mis­si­on of any per­ti­nent infor­ma­ti­on it has recei­ved. To the ext­ent neces­sa­ry, the secre­ta­ri­at of the com­mit­tee shall pro­vi­de trans­la­ti­ons of the per­ti­nent infor­ma­ti­on; and
b) as the case may be, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty refer­red to in para­graphs 1 and 2 and the Com­mis­si­on of the opi­ni­on and shall make it public.
(6) The com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall not adopt the draft decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 befo­re the expiry of the peri­od refer­red to in para­graph 3.
(The Super­vi­so­ry Aut­ho­ri­ty refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall take the utmost account of the opi­ni­on of the Com­mit­tee and shall noti­fy its Chair elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, using a stan­dar­di­zed for­mat, within two weeks of rece­ipt of the opi­ni­on, whe­ther it will main­tain or amend the draft decis­i­on and, whe­re appro­pria­te, shall trans­mit the amen­ded draft decision.
8. Whe­re, within the peri­od refer­red to in para­graph 7 of this Artic­le, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned informs the Chair of the Com­mit­tee, sta­ting the rele­vant rea­sons, that it intends not to fol­low the opi­ni­on of the Com­mit­tee in who­le or in part, Artic­le 65(1) shall apply.

Artic­le 65 Dis­pu­te sett­le­ment by the Committee

(1) In order to ensu­re the pro­per and uni­form appli­ca­ti­on of this Ordi­nan­ce in indi­vi­du­al cases, the Com­mit­tee shall issue a bin­ding decis­i­on in the fol­lo­wing cases:
a) whe­re, in a case refer­red to in Artic­le 60(4), a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned has rai­sed an aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and rea­so­ned objec­tion to a draft decis­i­on of the lead aut­ho­ri­ty or the lead aut­ho­ri­ty has rejec­ted such objec­tion as not aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve or not rea­so­ned. The bin­ding decis­i­on shall con­cern all mat­ters which are the sub­ject of the aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve and rea­so­ned objec­tion, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­ther the­re has been a breach of this Regulation;
b) if the­re are con­flic­ting views as to which of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned has juris­dic­tion over the head office,
c) whe­re a com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty does not seek the opi­ni­on of the Board in the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 64(1) or does not fol­low the opi­ni­on of the Board pur­su­ant to Artic­le 64. In that case, any super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned or the Com­mis­si­on may refer the mat­ter to the Committee.
(2) The decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall be adopted by a majo­ri­ty of two-thirds of the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee within one month of the mat­ter being refer­red to it. This peri­od may be exten­ded by one addi­tio­nal month due to the com­ple­xi­ty of the mat­ter. The decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 shall be rea­so­ned and com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and all super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned and shall be bin­ding on them.
(If the Com­mit­tee has been unable to adopt a decis­i­on within the time limits refer­red to in para­graph 2, it shall adopt its decis­i­on by a simp­le majo­ri­ty of the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee within two weeks of the expiry of the second month refer­red to in para­graph 2. In the event of a tie bet­ween the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee, the Chair shall have the casting vote.
(4) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned shall not adopt a decis­i­on on the mat­ter sub­mit­ted to the Com­mit­tee befo­re the expiry of the dead­lines refer­red to in para­graphs 2 and 3.
(5. The Chair of the Com­mit­tee shall inform the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned of the decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 wit­hout delay. It shall inform the Com­mis­si­on the­reof. The decis­i­on shall be published on the web­site of the Board wit­hout delay after the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has noti­fi­ed the final decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 6.
(The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which the com­plaint has been lodged shall take the final decis­i­on on the basis of the decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le wit­hout undue delay and no later than one month after the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board has noti­fi­ed its decis­i­on. The lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or, whe­re appli­ca­ble, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which the com­plaint has been lodged shall inform the Board of the date on which its final decis­i­on is noti­fi­ed to the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor or the data sub­ject. The final decis­i­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned shall be adopted in accordance with Artic­le 60(7), (8) and (9). The final decis­i­on shall refer to the decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 and shall spe­ci­fy that the decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le shall be published on the Board’s web­site in accordance with para­graph 5. The final decis­i­on shall be accom­pa­nied by the decis­i­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this _article.

Artic­le 66 Emer­gen­cy procedure

(In excep­tio­nal cir­cum­stances, a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned may, by way of dero­ga­ti­on from the con­si­sten­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­les 63, 64 and 65 or the pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 60, imme­dia­te­ly adopt inte­rim mea­su­res with a defi­ned dura­ti­on of no more than three months, inten­ded to have legal effect on its ter­ri­to­ry, if it con­siders that the­re is an urgent need to act in order to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall, wit­hout undue delay, inform the other super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned, the Board and the Com­mis­si­on of tho­se mea­su­res and the rea­sons for their adoption.
(2) If a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has taken a mea­su­re pur­su­ant to para­graph (1) and con­siders that defi­ni­ti­ve mea­su­res must be adopted urgen­tly, it may request an opi­ni­on or a bin­ding decis­i­on of the Com­mit­tee under the urgent pro­ce­du­re, sta­ting its reasons.
(3) Any super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty may request an opi­ni­on or, as the case may be, a bin­ding decis­i­on of the Com­mit­tee under the urgent pro­ce­du­re, giving rea­sons, inclu­ding for the urgent need for action, if a com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has not taken an appro­pria­te mea­su­re to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects despi­te the urgent need for action.
By way of dero­ga­ti­on from Rules 64(3) and 65(2), an opi­ni­on or a bin­ding decis­i­on adopted under the urgen­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in para­graphs 2 and 3 shall be adopted within two weeks by a simp­le majo­ri­ty of the mem­bers of the Committee.
Reci­tals
(137) The­re may be an urgent need to act to pro­tect the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the­re is a risk of a signi­fi­cant impe­di­ment to the enforce­ment of a data subject’s right. A super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should the­r­e­fo­re be able to adopt duly justi­fi­ed pro­vi­sio­nal mea­su­res within its ter­ri­to­ry with a fixed dura­ti­on of no more than three months.

Artic­le 67 Exch­an­ge of information

The Com­mis­si­on may adopt imple­men­ting acts of gene­ral scope lay­ing down the arran­ge­ments for the elec­tro­nic exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and the Board, in par­ti­cu­lar the stan­dar­di­zed for­mat refer­red to in Artic­le 64. Tho­se imple­men­ting acts shall be adopted in accordance with the exami­na­ti­on pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 93(2).

Sec­tion 3 Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board

Artic­le 68 Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board

(1) The Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board (her­ein­af­ter “Com­mit­tee”) shall be estab­lished as a body of the Uni­on having legal personality.
(2) The Com­mit­tee shall be repre­sen­ted by its Chair.
(3. The Board shall be com­po­sed of the head of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of each Mem­ber Sta­te and the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor or their respec­ti­ve representatives.
(4. Whe­re more than one super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in a Mem­ber Sta­te is respon­si­ble for super­vi­sing the appli­ca­ti­on of the pro­vi­si­ons adopted pur­su­ant to this Regu­la­ti­on, a com­mon repre­sen­ta­ti­ve shall be desi­gna­ted in accordance with the law of that Mem­ber State.
(5) The Com­mis­si­on shall be entit­led to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the acti­vi­ties and mee­tings of the Com­mit­tee wit­hout the right to vote. The Com­mis­si­on shall appoint a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve. The Chair of the Com­mit­tee shall inform the Com­mis­si­on about the acti­vi­ties of the Committee.
(6. In the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 65, the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor shall be entit­led to vote only on decis­i­ons which con­cern prin­ci­ples and rules appli­ca­ble to the Uni­on insti­tu­ti­ons, bodies, offices and agen­ci­es and which are con­si­stent in sub­stance with the prin­ci­ples and rules laid down in this Regulation.
Reci­tals
(139) In order to pro­mo­te the uni­form appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, the Com­mit­tee should be estab­lished as an inde­pen­dent Uni­on body. In order to achie­ve its objec­ti­ves, the Com­mit­tee should have legal per­so­na­li­ty. The Com­mit­tee should be repre­sen­ted by its Chair. It should replace the Working Par­ty on the Pro­tec­tion of Indi­vi­du­als with regard to the Pro­ce­s­sing of Per­so­nal Data estab­lished by Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC. It should be com­po­sed of the head of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of each Mem­ber Sta­te and the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor or their respec­ti­ve repre­sen­ta­ti­ves. The Com­mis­si­on should par­ti­ci­pa­te in the Committee’s deli­be­ra­ti­ons wit­hout voting rights and the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor should have spe­ci­fic voting rights. The Board should con­tri­bu­te to the con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on of the Regu­la­ti­on throug­hout the Uni­on, advi­se the Com­mis­si­on in par­ti­cu­lar on the level of pro­tec­tion in third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, and pro­mo­te coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties in the Uni­on. The Board should act inde­pendent­ly in the per­for­mance of its tasks.

Artic­le 69 Independence

(1) The Com­mit­tee shall act inde­pendent­ly in the per­for­mance of its duties or in the exer­cise of its powers under Artic­les 70 and 71.
Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the requests of the Com­mis­si­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 70(1)(b) and (2), the Com­mit­tee shall not seek or take ins­truc­tions in the per­for­mance of its func­tions or in the exer­cise of its powers.

Artic­le 70 Tasks of the Committee

(1. The Com­mit­tee shall ensu­re the uni­form appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on. To that end, the Com­mit­tee shall, on its own initia­ti­ve or, whe­re appro­pria­te, at the request of the Com­mis­si­on, car­ry out in par­ti­cu­lar the fol­lo­wing activities:
a) moni­to­ring and ensu­ring the pro­per appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on in the cases refer­red to in Artic­les 64 and 65, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the tasks of the natio­nal super­vi­so­ry authorities;
b) Advi­se the Com­mis­si­on on all mat­ters rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data in the Uni­on, inclu­ding any pro­po­sals to amend this Regulation;
c) Advi­se the Com­mis­si­on on the for­mat and pro­ce­du­res for the exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on bet­ween con­trol­lers, pro­ces­sors and super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties regar­ding bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules;
d) Pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces on pro­ce­du­res for the era­su­re, pur­su­ant to Artic­le 17(2), of links to per­so­nal data or copies or repli­ca­ti­ons of such data from publicly available com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons services;
e) Con­sider, on its own initia­ti­ve, at the request of one of its mem­bers, or at the request of the Com­mis­si­on, mat­ters rela­ting to the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on and pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons, and best prac­ti­ces for the pur­po­se of ensu­ring uni­form appli­ca­ti­on of this Regulation;
f) Pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces, as refer­red to in point (e) of this para­graph, to fur­ther defi­ne the cri­te­ria and con­di­ti­ons for the pro­fil­ing-based decis­i­ons refer­red to in Artic­le 22(2);
g) Pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces in accordance with sub­pa­ra­graph (e) of this para­graph on the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of per­so­nal data brea­ches and the deter­mi­na­ti­on of prompt­ness for the pur­po­ses of Artic­le 33(1) and (2), and on the spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stances in which the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall noti­fy the per­so­nal data breach;
h) Pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces, as refer­red to in point (e) of this para­graph, on the cir­cum­stances in which a per­so­nal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons within the mea­ning of Artic­le 34(1);
i) Pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces, as refer­red to in point (e) of this para­graph, to fur­ther spe­ci­fy the cri­te­ria and requi­re­ments for trans­fers of per­so­nal data listed in Artic­le 47 that are based on bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules of con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors and the fur­ther neces­sa­ry requi­re­ments for the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data of data sub­jects listed therein;
j) Pro­vi­de gui­de­lines, recom­men­da­ti­ons, and best prac­ti­ces, as refer­red to in sub­pa­ra­graph (e) of this para­graph, to fur­ther defi­ne the cri­te­ria and con­di­ti­ons for trans­fers of per­so­nal data pur­su­ant to Artic­le 49(1);
k) Deve­lop gui­de­lines for super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties regar­ding the appli­ca­ti­on of mea­su­res under Artic­le 58(1), (2) and (3) and the set­ting of fines under Artic­le 83;
l) Review the prac­ti­cal appli­ca­ti­on of the gui­de­lines, recom­men­da­ti­ons, and best prac­ti­ces iden­ti­fi­ed in sub­pa­ra­graphs (e) and (f);
m) Pro­vi­de gui­dance, recom­men­da­ti­ons, and best prac­ti­ces, as refer­red to in sub­pa­ra­graph (e) of this para­graph, to estab­lish com­mon pro­ce­du­res for the report­ing by natu­ral per­sons of vio­la­ti­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 54(2);
n) Pro­mo­te the deve­lo­p­ment of codes of con­duct and the estab­lish­ment of pri­va­cy cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on sche­mes and pri­va­cy seals and marks in accordance with Artic­les 40 and 42;
o) Accre­di­ta­ti­on of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies and their peri­odic review pur­su­ant to Artic­le 43 and main­ten­an­ce of a public regi­ster of accre­di­ted bodies pur­su­ant to Artic­le 43(6) and of accre­di­ted con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors estab­lished in third count­ries pur­su­ant to Artic­le 42(7);
p) Cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on of the requi­re­ments refer­red to in Artic­le 43(3) with regard to the accre­di­ta­ti­on of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies under Artic­le 42;
q) Issuing an opi­ni­on for the Com­mis­si­on on the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on requi­re­ments under Artic­le 43(8);
r) Issuing an opi­ni­on for the Com­mis­si­on on the pic­to­ri­al sym­bols refer­red to in Artic­le 12(7);
s) issue an opi­ni­on for the Com­mis­si­on on the ade­qua­cy of the level of pro­tec­tion pro­vi­ded in a third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on, inclu­ding on the assess­ment of whe­ther the third coun­try, ter­ri­to­ry, spe­ci­fic sector(s) in that third coun­try or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on no lon­ger pro­vi­des an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion. To that end, the Com­mis­si­on shall pro­vi­de the Com­mit­tee with all neces­sa­ry docu­men­ta­ti­on, inclu­ding cor­re­spon­dence with the govern­ment of the third coun­try, ter­ri­to­ry or spe­ci­fic sec­tor or inter­na­tio­nal organization;
t) issuing opi­ni­ons under the con­si­sten­cy pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Artic­le 64(1) on draft decis­i­ons of super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, on mat­ters sub­mit­ted in accordance with Artic­le 64(2) and for the adop­ti­on of bin­ding decis­i­ons in accordance with Artic­le 65, inclu­ding the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 66;
u) Pro­mo­te coope­ra­ti­on and effec­ti­ve bila­te­ral and mul­ti­la­te­ral exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on and best prac­ti­ces among regulators;
v) Pro­mo­te trai­ning pro­grams and faci­li­ta­te staff exch­an­ges among super­vi­sors and, whe­re appro­pria­te, with super­vi­sors of third count­ries or with inter­na­tio­nal organizations;
w) Pro­mo­te the exch­an­ge of exper­ti­se and docu­men­ta­ti­on on data pro­tec­tion regu­la­ti­ons and prac­ti­ces with data pro­tec­tion super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties around the world;
x) issuing opi­ni­ons on the rules of con­duct drawn up at Uni­on level pur­su­ant to Artic­le 40(9); and
y) Main­tai­ning a publicly acce­s­si­ble elec­tro­nic regi­stry of decis­i­ons of regu­la­to­ry agen­ci­es and courts regar­ding issues addres­sed through the con­si­sten­cy process.
(2) The Com­mis­si­on, when see­king the advice of the Com­mit­tee, may spe­ci­fy a time limit, taking into account the urgen­cy of the matter.
(The Com­mit­tee shall for­ward its opi­ni­ons, gui­de­lines, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces to the Com­mis­si­on and to the Com­mit­tee refer­red to in Artic­le 93 and shall make them public.
(4. The Com­mit­tee shall, whe­re appro­pria­te, con­sult inte­re­sted par­ties and give them the oppor­tu­ni­ty to com­ment within a rea­sonable peri­od. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to Artic­le 76, the Com­mit­tee shall make the results of the con­sul­ta­ti­on available to the public.

Artic­le 71 Reporting

(1. The Board shall draw up an annu­al report on the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to pro­ce­s­sing in the Uni­on and, whe­re appro­pria­te, in third count­ries and inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons. The report shall be made public and sent to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, the Coun­cil and the Commission.
The annu­al report shall include a review of the prac­ti­cal appli­ca­ti­on of the gui­de­lines, recom­men­da­ti­ons and best prac­ti­ces refer­red to in Artic­le 70(1)(l) and of the bin­ding decis­i­ons refer­red to in Artic­le 65.

Artic­le 72 Procedure

(1) Unless other­wi­se pro­vi­ded in this Regu­la­ti­on, the Com­mit­tee shall take its decis­i­ons by a simp­le majo­ri­ty of its members.
(2) The Com­mit­tee shall adopt its rules of pro­ce­du­re by a majo­ri­ty of two-thirds of its mem­bers and shall deter­mi­ne its working methods.

Artic­le 73 Chair

(1) The Com­mit­tee shall elect a chair­per­son and two vice-chair­per­sons from among its mem­bers by a simp­le majority.
(2) The term of office of the Chair­man and his two depu­ties shall be five years; they may be re-elec­ted once.

Artic­le 74 Tasks of the Chair

(1) The Chair shall have the fol­lo­wing duties:
a) Con­ve­ne mee­tings of the Com­mit­tee and prepa­re agendas,
b) Trans­mis­si­on of the decis­i­ons of the Artic­le 65 Com­mit­tee to the lead super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties concerned,
c) Ensu­re time­ly exe­cu­ti­on of the Committee’s tasks, par­ti­cu­lar­ly tho­se rela­ted to the con­si­sten­cy pro­cess under Rule 63.
(2) The Com­mit­tee shall deter­mi­ne the divi­si­on of duties bet­ween the Chair­man and his depu­ties in its rules of procedure.

Artic­le 75 Secretariat

(1. The Com­mit­tee shall be assi­sted by a secre­ta­ri­at pro­vi­ded by the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Supervisor.
(2) The Secre­ta­ri­at shall per­form its duties exclu­si­ve­ly on the ins­truc­tions of the Chair of the Committee.
(3. The staff of the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor invol­ved in the per­for­mance of the tasks ent­ru­sted to the Board under this Regu­la­ti­on shall be sub­ject to dif­fe­rent report­ing obli­ga­ti­ons than the staff invol­ved in the per­for­mance of the tasks ent­ru­sted to the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Supervisor.
(Whe­re appro­pria­te, the Board and the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor shall draw up and publish a memo­ran­dum of under­stan­ding for the appli­ca­ti­on of this Artic­le, set­ting out the con­di­ti­ons of their coope­ra­ti­on and appli­ca­ble to the staff of the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor invol­ved in the per­for­mance of the tasks ent­ru­sted to the Board under this Regulation.
(5) The Secre­ta­ri­at shall pro­vi­de ana­ly­ti­cal, admi­ni­stra­ti­ve, and logi­sti­cal sup­port to the Committee.
(6) The Secre­ta­ri­at shall be respon­si­ble in par­ti­cu­lar for
a) the day-to-day busi­ness of the committee,
b) com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on bet­ween the mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee, its Chair and the Commission,
c) com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on with other insti­tu­ti­ons and with the public,
d) the use of elec­tro­nic means for inter­nal and exter­nal communication,
e) the trans­la­ti­on of rele­vant information,
f) the pre­pa­ra­ti­on and fol­low-up of the mee­tings of the Committee,
g) pre­pa­ring, draf­ting and publi­shing opi­ni­ons, decis­i­ons on the sett­le­ment of dis­pu­tes bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and other docu­ments adopted by the Committee.
Reci­tals
(140) The Board should be assi­sted by a secre­ta­ri­at pro­vi­ded by the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor. The staff of the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Super­vi­sor invol­ved in the per­for­mance of the tasks ent­ru­sted to the Board under this Regu­la­ti­on should per­form tho­se tasks exclu­si­ve­ly in accordance with the ins­truc­tions of, and report to, the Chair of the Board.

Artic­le 76 Confidentiality

(1) The deli­be­ra­ti­ons of the Com­mit­tee shall be con­fi­den­ti­al in accordance with its rules of pro­ce­du­re if the Com­mit­tee deems it necessary.
(Access to docu­ments sub­mit­ted to mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee, experts and repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of third par­ties shall be gover­ned by Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (21).

Chap­ter VIII Reme­dies, lia­bi­li­ty and sanctions

Artic­le 77 Right to com­plain to a super­vi­so­ry authority

(1. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to any other admi­ni­stra­ti­ve or judi­cial reme­dy, every data sub­ject shall have the right to lodge a com­plaint with a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar in the Mem­ber Sta­te of his or her resi­dence, place of work or the place of the alle­ged inf­rin­ge­ment, if the data sub­ject con­siders that the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data rela­ting to him or her inf­rin­ges this Regulation.
(2) The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to which the com­plaint has been filed shall inform the com­plainant of the sta­tus and results of the com­plaint, inclu­ding the pos­si­bi­li­ty of a judi­cial reme­dy under Artic­le 78.
Reci­tals
(141) Every data sub­ject should have the right to lodge a com­plaint with a sin­gle super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar in the Mem­ber Sta­te of his or her habi­tu­al resi­dence, and to seek an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy in accordance with Artic­le 47 of the Char­ter, whe­re he or she con­siders that his or her rights under this Regu­la­ti­on have been inf­rin­ged or whe­re the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty fails to act on a com­plaint, rejects or refu­ses a com­plaint in part or in who­le, or fails to act despi­te the need to pro­tect the rights of the data sub­ject. The inve­sti­ga­ti­on fol­lo­wing a com­plaint should be as broad as appro­pria­te in the indi­vi­du­al case, sub­ject to judi­cial review. The super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should inform the data sub­ject of the pro­gress and out­co­me of the com­plaint within a rea­sonable peri­od of time. If fur­ther inve­sti­ga­ti­on or coor­di­na­ti­on with ano­ther super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is neces­sa­ry, the data sub­ject should be infor­med of the inte­rim sta­tus. Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should take mea­su­res to faci­li­ta­te the sub­mis­si­on of com­plaints, such as pro­vi­ding a com­plaint form that can also be com­ple­ted elec­tro­ni­cal­ly, wit­hout exclu­ding other means of communication.

Artic­le 78 Right to effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy against a super­vi­so­ry authority

(1) Any natu­ral or legal per­son shall have the right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy against a legal­ly bin­ding decis­i­on of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ning him, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to any other admi­ni­stra­ti­ve or ext­ra­ju­di­cial remedy.
(Any data sub­ject shall have the right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy, wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to any other admi­ni­stra­ti­ve or ext­ra­ju­di­cial reme­dy, if the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent pur­su­ant to Artic­les 55 and 56 has not dealt with a com­plaint or has not infor­med the data sub­ject within three months of the sta­tus or out­co­me of the com­plaint lodged pur­su­ant to Artic­le 77.
(3. Pro­ce­e­dings against a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall be brought befo­re the courts of the Mem­ber Sta­te in which the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is established.
(In the event of pro­ce­e­dings against the decis­i­on of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pre­ce­ded by an opi­ni­on or decis­i­on of the Com­mit­tee under the con­si­sten­cy pro­ce­du­re, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall for­ward such opi­ni­on or decis­i­on to the court.
Reci­tals
(143) Any natu­ral or legal per­son shall have the right to bring an action befo­re the Court of Justi­ce for the annul­ment of a decis­i­on of the Board, under the con­di­ti­ons laid down in Artic­le 263 TFEU. As addres­sees of such decis­i­ons, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties con­cer­ned wis­hing to chall­enge tho­se decis­i­ons must bring an action pur­su­ant to Artic­le 263 TFEU within two months of their noti­fi­ca­ti­on. Whe­re decis­i­ons of the Board direct­ly and indi­vi­du­al­ly affect a con­trol­ler, a pro­ces­sor or the com­plainant, tho­se per­sons may bring an action for annul­ment in accordance with Artic­le 263 TFEU within two months of the publi­ca­ti­on of the rele­vant decis­i­ons on the Board’s web­site. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to that right under Artic­le 263 TFEU, any natu­ral or legal per­son should have the right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy befo­re the com­pe­tent natio­nal court against a decis­i­on of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty which pro­du­ces legal effects vis-à-vis that per­son. Such a decis­i­on con­cerns, in par­ti­cu­lar, the exer­cise by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of powers of inve­sti­ga­ti­on, redress and aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on, or the rejec­tion or dis­mis­sal of com­plaints. Howe­ver, the right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy does not cover legal­ly non-bin­ding mea­su­res taken by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, such as opi­ni­ons or recom­men­da­ti­ons issued by it. Pro­ce­e­dings against a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should be brought befo­re the courts of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty is estab­lished and should be con­duc­ted in accordance with the pro­ce­du­ral law of that Mem­ber Sta­te. Tho­se courts should have unli­mi­t­ed juris­dic­tion, which inclu­des the com­pe­tence to exami­ne all issues of fact and law rele­vant to the dis­pu­te befo­re them. Whe­re a com­plaint has been rejec­ted or dis­missed by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the com­plainant may bring an action befo­re the courts of the same Mem­ber State.
In the con­text of judi­cial reme­dies rela­ting to the appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, natio­nal courts which con­sider that a decis­i­on on the mat­ter is neces­sa­ry to enable them to give judgment may, or, in the cases refer­red to in Artic­le 267 TFEU, must, request the Court of Justi­ce to give a preli­mi­na­ry ruling on the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of Uni­on law, which inclu­des this Regu­la­ti­on. Fur­ther­mo­re, if a decis­i­on of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to imple­ment a decis­i­on of the Board is chal­len­ged befo­re a natio­nal court and the vali­di­ty of the decis­i­on of the Board is cal­led into que­sti­on, that natio­nal court does not have the power to annul the decis­i­on of the Board but, in accordance with Artic­le 267 TFEU as inter­pre­ted by the Court of Justi­ce, must refer the que­sti­on of vali­di­ty to the Court of Justi­ce if it con­siders the decis­i­on to be void. Howe­ver, a natio­nal court may not refer que­sti­ons of the vali­di­ty of the Committee’s decis­i­on to the Court of Justi­ce at the request of a natu­ral or legal per­son if that per­son has had an oppor­tu­ni­ty to bring an action for annul­ment of that decis­i­on – in par­ti­cu­lar if he or she was direct­ly and indi­vi­du­al­ly con­cer­ned by the decis­i­on – but has not avai­led hims­elf or hers­elf of that oppor­tu­ni­ty within the time limit laid down in Artic­le 263 TFEU. 

Artic­le 79 Right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy against con­trol­lers or processors

(1. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to any available admi­ni­stra­ti­ve or judi­cial reme­dy, inclu­ding the right to lodge a com­plaint with a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pur­su­ant to Artic­le 77, every data sub­ject shall have the right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy if he or she con­siders that his or her rights under this Regu­la­ti­on have been inf­rin­ged as a result of the pro­ce­s­sing of his or her per­so­nal data not in com­pli­ance with this Regulation.
(2. Actions against a con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor shall be brought in the courts of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has an estab­lish­ment. Alter­na­tively, such actions may also be brought in the courts of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the data sub­ject is domic­i­led, unless the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor is a public aut­ho­ri­ty of a Mem­ber Sta­te acting in the exer­cise of its public powers.
Reci­tals
(145) In pro­ce­e­dings against con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors, it should be left to the plain­ti­ff to deci­de whe­ther to bring pro­ce­e­dings befo­re the courts of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has an estab­lish­ment or of the Mem­ber Sta­te whe­re the data sub­ject is domic­i­led, except whe­re the con­trol­ler is an aut­ho­ri­ty of a Mem­ber Sta­te acting in the exer­cise of its public powers.
(147) To the ext­ent that this Regu­la­ti­on con­ta­ins spe­ci­fic rules on juris­dic­tion, in par­ti­cu­lar with regard to pro­ce­e­dings for a judi­cial reme­dy, inclu­ding dama­ges, against a con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, the gene­ral rules on juris­dic­tion, such as tho­se con­tai­ned in Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 1215/2012 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (13), should not pre­vent the appli­ca­ti­on of tho­se spe­ci­fic rules.

Artic­le 80 Repre­sen­ta­ti­on of data subjects

(The data sub­ject shall have the right to ins­truct a non-pro­fit body, orga­nizati­on or asso­cia­ti­on, duly con­sti­tu­ted in accordance with the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te, who­se sta­tu­to­ry objec­ti­ves are in the public inte­rest and which is acti­ve in the field of the pro­tec­tion of the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects with regard to the pro­tec­tion of their per­so­nal data, to lodge a com­plaint on his or her behalf, to exer­cise on his or her behalf the rights refer­red to in Artic­les 77, 78 and 79 and to exer­cise the right to com­pen­sa­ti­on for dama­ges refer­red to in Artic­le 82, whe­re pro­vi­ded for in the law of the Mem­ber States.
(Mem­ber Sta­tes may pro­vi­de that any body, orga­nizati­on or asso­cia­ti­on refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le shall have the right to lodge a com­plaint with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty com­pe­tent pur­su­ant to Artic­le 77 and to exer­cise the rights refer­red to in Artic­les 78 and 79, inde­pendent­ly of any man­da­te given by the data sub­ject in that Mem­ber Sta­te, whe­re it con­siders that the rights of a data sub­ject under this Regu­la­ti­on have been inf­rin­ged as a result of a pro­ce­s­sing operation.
Reci­tals
(142) Data sub­jects who con­sider that their rights under this Regu­la­ti­on have been inf­rin­ged should have the right to ins­truct bodies, orga­nizati­ons or asso­cia­ti­ons estab­lished in accordance with the law of a Mem­ber Sta­te, which are not-for-pro­fit and who­se sta­tu­to­ry objec­ti­ves are in the public inte­rest and which are acti­ve in the field of the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, to lodge a com­plaint on their behalf with a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty or to seek judi­cial reme­dy or to exer­cise the right to com­pen­sa­ti­on whe­re pro­vi­ded for in the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes. Mem­ber Sta­tes may pro­vi­de that such bodies, orga­nizati­ons or asso­cia­ti­ons should have the right to lodge their own com­plaint, inde­pendent­ly of being man­da­ted by a data sub­ject in the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned, and the right to an effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dy whe­re they have rea­son to belie­ve that the rights of the data sub­ject have been inf­rin­ged as a result of pro­ce­s­sing not in com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on. Such bodies, orga­nizati­ons or asso­cia­ti­ons may not be allo­wed to cla­im dama­ges on behalf of a data sub­ject, regard­less of the man­da­te of a data subject.

Artic­le 81 Sus­pen­si­on of proceedings

(Whe­re a com­pe­tent court in a Mem­ber Sta­te beco­mes awa­re of pro­ce­e­dings on the same sub­ject mat­ter rela­ting to pro­ce­s­sing by the same con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor which are pen­ding befo­re a court in ano­ther Mem­ber Sta­te, it shall cont­act that court in order to ascer­tain that such pro­ce­e­dings exist.
(2. Whe­re pro­ce­e­dings on the same sub­ject mat­ter rela­ting to pro­ce­s­sing by the same con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor are pen­ding befo­re a court in ano­ther Mem­ber Sta­te, any court sei­sed sub­se­quent­ly may stay the pro­ce­e­dings pen­ding befo­re it.
(3) Whe­re such pro­ce­e­dings are pen­ding at first instance, any court sub­se­quent­ly sei­sed may also, on appli­ca­ti­on by a par­ty, decli­ne juris­dic­tion if the court first sei­sed has juris­dic­tion over the actions in que­sti­on and the join­der of the actions is per­mit­ted under its law.
Reci­tals
(144) Whe­re a court sei­sed of pro­ce­e­dings against a decis­i­on of a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty has rea­son to belie­ve that pro­ce­e­dings con­cer­ning the same pro­ce­s­sing – for instance on the same sub­ject mat­ter in rela­ti­on to pro­ce­s­sing by the same con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor or in rela­ti­on to the same cla­im – are pen­ding befo­re a com­pe­tent court in ano­ther Mem­ber Sta­te, it should cont­act that court in order to ascer­tain that such rela­ted pro­ce­e­dings exist. Whe­re rela­ted pro­ce­e­dings are pen­ding befo­re a court in ano­ther Mem­ber Sta­te, any court other than the court first sei­sed may stay its pro­ce­e­dings or, at the request of one of the par­ties, may also decli­ne juris­dic­tion in favor of the court first sei­sed if that court, other than the court first sei­sed, has juris­dic­tion over the pro­ce­e­dings in que­sti­on and the join­der of such rela­ted pro­ce­e­dings is per­mit­ted under its law. Pro­ce­e­dings shall be dee­med to be rela­ted if they are so clo­se­ly con­nec­ted that it is expe­di­ent to hear and deter­mi­ne them tog­e­ther to avo­id irre­con­cilable judgments in sepa­ra­te proceedings.

Artic­le 82 Lia­bi­li­ty and right to compensation

(1) Any per­son who has suf­fe­r­ed mate­ri­al or non-mate­ri­al dama­ge due to a breach of this Regu­la­ti­on shall be entit­led to com­pen­sa­ti­on from the con­trol­ler or from the processor.
(2) Each con­trol­ler invol­ved in a pro­ce­s­sing shall be lia­ble for the dama­ge cau­sed by a pro­ce­s­sing not in com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on. A pro­ces­sor shall be lia­ble for the dama­ge cau­sed by a pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­on only if it has fai­led to com­ply with its obli­ga­ti­ons under this Regu­la­ti­on spe­ci­fi­cal­ly impo­sed on pro­ces­sors or has acted in dis­re­gard of or against the lawful­ly given ins­truc­tions of the controller.
(3) The per­son respon­si­ble or the pro­ces­sor shall be exempt­ed from lia­bi­li­ty under para­graph 2 if he pro­ves that he is not respon­si­ble in any respect for the cir­cum­stance by which the dama­ge occurred.
(4) Whe­re more than one con­trol­ler or more than one pro­ces­sor or both a con­trol­ler and a pro­ces­sor are invol­ved in the same pro­ce­s­sing and they are respon­si­ble for dama­ge cau­sed by the pro­ce­s­sing pur­su­ant to para­graphs (2) and (3), each con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall be lia­ble for the enti­re dama­ge in order to ensu­re effec­ti­ve com­pen­sa­ti­on for the data subject.
(5) If a data con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor has paid full com­pen­sa­ti­on for the dama­ge suf­fe­r­ed pur­su­ant to para­graph 4, such data con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor shall be entit­led to reco­ver from the other data con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors invol­ved in the same pro­ce­s­sing the part of the com­pen­sa­ti­on cor­re­spon­ding to their share of respon­si­bi­li­ty for the dama­ge under the con­di­ti­ons set forth in para­graph 2.
6. Legal pro­ce­e­dings to invo­ke the right to com­pen­sa­ti­on shall be brought befo­re the courts having juris­dic­tion under the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te refer­red to in Artic­le 79(2).
Reci­tals
(146) The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should com­pen­sa­te for dama­ge cau­sed to a per­son as a result of pro­ce­s­sing that does not com­ply with this Regu­la­ti­on. The con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should be exempt­ed from lia­bi­li­ty if it pro­ves that it is not in any way respon­si­ble for the dama­ge. The con­cept of dama­ge should be inter­pre­ted broad­ly in the light of the case law of the Court of Justi­ce in a way that is ful­ly con­si­stent with the objec­ti­ves of this Regu­la­ti­on. This is wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to claims for dama­ges based on inf­rin­ge­ments of other pro­vi­si­ons of Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law. Pro­ce­s­sing that is not in com­pli­ance with this Regu­la­ti­on inclu­des pro­ce­s­sing that is not in com­pli­ance with dele­ga­ted and imple­men­ting acts adopted pur­su­ant to this Regu­la­ti­on and legis­la­ti­on of the Mem­ber Sta­tes cla­ri­fy­ing pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on. Data sub­jects should recei­ve full and effec­ti­ve com­pen­sa­ti­on for the dama­ge suf­fe­r­ed. Whe­re con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors are invol­ved in the same pro­ce­s­sing, each con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor should be held lia­ble for the enti­re dama­ge. Howe­ver, whe­re they are invol­ved in the same pro­ce­s­sing in accordance with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, they may be held lia­ble in pro­por­ti­on to the respon­si­bi­li­ty bor­ne by each con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor for the dama­ge cau­sed by the pro­ce­s­sing, pro­vi­ded that it is ensu­red that the data sub­ject recei­ves full and effec­ti­ve com­pen­sa­ti­on for the dama­ge suf­fe­r­ed. Any con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor who has paid full com­pen­sa­ti­on for the dama­ge may sub­se­quent­ly initia­te recour­se pro­ce­e­dings against other con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors invol­ved in the same processing.

Artic­le 83 Gene­ral con­di­ti­ons for the impo­si­ti­on of fines

(Each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty shall ensu­re that the impo­si­ti­on of fines under this Artic­le for inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on pur­su­ant to para­graphs 5 and 6 is effec­ti­ve, pro­por­tio­na­te and dissua­si­ve in each case.
(2) Fines shall be impo­sed in addi­ti­on to, or in lieu of, mea­su­res under Artic­le 58(2)(a) to (h) and (i), depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances of each case. In deci­ding on the impo­si­ti­on of a fine and on its amount, due con­side­ra­ti­on shall be given to the fol­lo­wing in each indi­vi­du­al case:
a) The natu­re, gra­vi­ty and dura­ti­on of the breach, taking into account the natu­re, scope or pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing in que­sti­on, as well as the num­ber of data sub­jects affec­ted by the pro­ce­s­sing and the ext­ent of the dama­ge suf­fe­r­ed by them;
b) Inten­tio­na­li­ty or negli­gence of the violation;
c) any mea­su­res taken by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor to miti­ga­te the dama­ge cau­sed to the data subjects;
d) Degree of respon­si­bi­li­ty of the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, taking into account the tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res taken by them in accordance with Artic­les 25 and 32;
e) any rele­vant pre­vious inf­rin­ge­ments by the con­trol­ler or processor;
f) Ext­ent of coope­ra­ti­on with the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty to reme­dy the vio­la­ti­on and miti­ga­te its poten­ti­al adver­se effects;
g) Cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data affec­ted by the breach;
h) How the breach came to the atten­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar whe­ther and, if so, to what ext­ent the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor noti­fi­ed the breach;
i) Com­pli­ance with the mea­su­res pre­vious­ly orde­red under Artic­le 58(2) against the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor con­cer­ned in rela­ti­on to the same sub­ject mat­ter, if such mea­su­res have been ordered;
j) Com­pli­ance with appro­ved codes of con­duct under Artic­le 40 or appro­ved cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res under Artic­le 42; and
k) any other aggravating or miti­ga­ting cir­cum­stances in the par­ti­cu­lar case, such as finan­cial bene­fits obtai­ned direct­ly or indi­rect­ly as a result of the breach or los­ses avoided.
(3) If a con­trol­ler or a pro­ces­sor inten­tio­nal­ly or negli­gent­ly inf­rin­ges more than one pro­vi­si­on of this Regu­la­ti­on in the same or rela­ted pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons, the total amount of the fine shall not exce­ed the amount for the most serious infringement.
(4) For vio­la­ti­ons of the fol­lo­wing pro­vi­si­ons, in accordance with para­graph (2), fines of up to EUR 10,000,000 or, in the case of an enter­pri­se, up to 2 % of its total annu­al world­wi­de tur­no­ver for the pre­ce­ding fis­cal year, whi­che­ver is grea­ter, shall be imposed:
a) the obli­ga­ti­ons of con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors under Artic­les 8, 11, 25 to 39, 42 and 43;
b) the duties of the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on body accor­ding to Artic­les 42 and 43;
c) the obli­ga­ti­ons of the moni­to­ring body pur­su­ant to Artic­le 41(4).
(5) For vio­la­ti­ons of the fol­lo­wing pro­vi­si­ons, in accordance with para­graph (2), fines shall be impo­sed up to EUR 20,000,000 or, in the case of an enter­pri­se, up to 4 % of its total annu­al world­wi­de tur­no­ver for the pre­ce­ding fis­cal year, whi­che­ver is greater:
a) the prin­ci­ples for pro­ce­s­sing, inclu­ding the con­di­ti­ons for con­sent, in accordance with Artic­les 5, 6, 7 and 9;
b) the rights of the data sub­ject under Artic­les 12 to 22;
c) the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to a reci­pi­ent in a third coun­try or to an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on in accordance with Artic­les 44 to 49;
d) all obli­ga­ti­ons under the legis­la­ti­on of the Mem­ber Sta­tes adopted under Chap­ter IX;
e) Fail­ure to com­ply with an order or tem­po­ra­ry or per­ma­nent rest­ric­tion or sus­pen­si­on of data trans­fer by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pur­su­ant to Artic­le 58(2) or fail­ure to grant access in breach of Artic­le 58(1).
(6) Fail­ure to com­ply with an ins­truc­tion of the Super­vi­so­ry Aut­ho­ri­ty pur­su­ant to Artic­le 58(2) shall be sub­ject to fines of up to EUR 20,000,000 or, in the case of an under­ta­king, up to 4 % of its total annu­al world­wi­de tur­no­ver in the pre­ce­ding finan­cial year, whi­che­ver is hig­her, in accordance with para­graph 2 of this Article.
7. Wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties’ reme­di­al powers under Artic­le 58(2), each Mem­ber Sta­te may lay down rules on whe­ther and to what ext­ent admi­ni­stra­ti­ve fines may be impo­sed on public aut­ho­ri­ties and public bodies estab­lished in that Mem­ber State.
(8. The exer­cise by a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty of its own powers under this Artic­le shall be sub­ject to ade­qua­te pro­ce­du­ral safe­guards in accordance with Uni­on and Mem­ber Sta­te law, inclu­ding effec­ti­ve judi­cial reme­dies and due process.
(9. Whe­re the legal order of a Mem­ber Sta­te does not pro­vi­de for fines, this Artic­le may be applied in such a way that the fine is initia­ted by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and impo­sed by the com­pe­tent natio­nal courts, while ensu­ring that such reme­dies are effec­ti­ve and have the same effect as fines impo­sed by super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. In any event, the fines impo­sed shall be effec­ti­ve, pro­por­tio­na­te and dissua­si­ve. The Mem­ber Sta­tes con­cer­ned shall com­mu­ni­ca­te to the Com­mis­si­on by 25 May 2018 the pro­vi­si­ons of natio­nal law which they adopt pur­su­ant to this para­graph and, wit­hout delay, any sub­se­quent amen­ding law or amend­ment thereto.
Reci­tals
(148) In order to enhan­ce con­si­stent enforce­ment of the pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on, sanc­tions, inclu­ding fines, should be impo­sed for inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on in addi­ti­on to, or instead of, the appro­pria­te mea­su­res impo­sed by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty pur­su­ant to this Regu­la­ti­on. In the case of a minor inf­rin­ge­ment or if fines likely to be impo­sed would impo­se a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te bur­den on a natu­ral per­son, a war­ning may be issued instead of a fine. Howe­ver, due account should be taken of the natu­re, gra­vi­ty and dura­ti­on of the breach, the inten­tio­nal natu­re of the breach, the mea­su­res taken to miti­ga­te the dama­ge cau­sed, the degree of respon­si­bi­li­ty or any pre­vious breach, the man­ner in which the breach came to the atten­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, com­pli­ance with the mea­su­res orde­red against the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor, com­pli­ance with rules of con­duct and any other aggravating or miti­ga­ting cir­cum­stance. The­re should be ade­qua­te pro­ce­du­ral safe­guards for the impo­si­ti­on of sanc­tions, inclu­ding fines, in accordance with the gene­ral prin­ci­ples of Uni­on law and the Char­ter, inclu­ding the right to effec­ti­ve judi­cial pro­tec­tion and a fair trial.
(149) Mem­ber Sta­tes should be able to lay down the cri­mi­nal sanc­tions appli­ca­ble to inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on, inclu­ding inf­rin­ge­ments of natio­nal pro­vi­si­ons adopted pur­su­ant to and within the limits of this Regu­la­ti­on. The­se cri­mi­nal sanc­tions may also allow for the con­fis­ca­ti­on of the pro­fits obtai­ned from the inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on. Howe­ver, the impo­si­ti­on of cri­mi­nal sanc­tions for vio­la­ti­ons of such natio­nal pro­vi­si­ons and of admi­ni­stra­ti­ve sanc­tions should not lead to a vio­la­ti­on of the prin­ci­ple of “ne bis in idem” as it has been inter­pre­ted by the Court.
(150) In order to har­mo­ni­ze the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve sanc­tions for inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on and to make them more effec­ti­ve, each super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should have the power to impo­se fines. This Regu­la­ti­on should spe­ci­fy the inf­rin­ge­ments as well as the upper limit of the cor­re­spon­ding fines and the cri­te­ria for set­ting them, such fines to be set by the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in each indi­vi­du­al case taking into account all spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stances and in par­ti­cu­lar the natu­re, gra­vi­ty and dura­ti­on of the inf­rin­ge­ment and its con­se­quen­ces, as well as the mea­su­res taken to ensu­re com­pli­ance with the obli­ga­ti­ons under this Regu­la­ti­on and to pre­vent or miti­ga­te the con­se­quen­ces of the inf­rin­ge­ment. Whe­re fines are impo­sed on under­ta­kings, the term “.Com­pa­ny” should be under­s­tood in the sen­se of Artic­les 101 and 102 TFEU. Whe­re fines are impo­sed on per­sons other than under­ta­kings, the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty should take into account the gene­ral level of inco­me in the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned and the eco­no­mic situa­ti­on of the per­sons when con­side­ring the appro­pria­te amount for the fine. The con­si­sten­cy mecha­nism can also be used to pro­mo­te con­si­stent appli­ca­ti­on of fines. Mem­ber Sta­tes should be able to deter­mi­ne whe­ther and to what ext­ent fines can be impo­sed on public aut­ho­ri­ties. Even if super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties have alre­a­dy impo­sed fines or issued a war­ning, they may exer­cise their other powers or impo­se other sanc­tions in accordance with this Regulation.
(151) The legal systems of Den­mark and Esto­nia do not allow the fines pro­vi­ded for in this Regu­la­ti­on. The rules on fines may be applied in such a way that the fine is impo­sed in Den­mark by the com­pe­tent natio­nal courts as a penal­ty and in Esto­nia by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty in the con­text of mis­de­me­an­or pro­ce­e­dings, pro­vi­ded that such appli­ca­ti­on of the rules in tho­se Mem­ber Sta­tes has the same effect as the fines impo­sed by the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties. The­r­e­fo­re, the com­pe­tent natio­nal courts should take into account the recom­men­da­ti­on of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty that initia­ted the fine. In any event, the fines impo­sed should be effec­ti­ve, pro­por­tio­na­te and dissuasive.

Artic­le 84 Penal sanctions

(Mem­ber Sta­tes shall lay down the rules on other sanc­tions appli­ca­ble to inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on, in par­ti­cu­lar to inf­rin­ge­ments not sub­ject to a fine pur­su­ant to Artic­le 83, and shall take all mea­su­res neces­sa­ry to ensu­re that they are imple­men­ted. Tho­se pen­al­ties shall be effec­ti­ve, pro­por­tio­na­te and dissuasive.
(Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall noti­fy to the Com­mis­si­on by 25 May 2018 the pro­vi­si­ons of law which it adopts pur­su­ant to para­graph 1 and, wit­hout delay, any sub­se­quent amend­ment affec­ting them.
Reci­tals
(152) To the ext­ent that this Regu­la­ti­on does not har­mo­ni­ze admi­ni­stra­ti­ve sanc­tions, or whe­re it is neces­sa­ry in other cases, such as serious inf­rin­ge­ments of this Regu­la­ti­on, Mem­ber Sta­tes should app­ly a system pro­vi­ding for effec­ti­ve, pro­por­tio­na­te and dissua­si­ve sanc­tions. It should be regu­la­ted in the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes whe­ther tho­se sanc­tions are of a cri­mi­nal or admi­ni­stra­ti­ve nature.

Chap­ter IX Pro­vi­si­ons for spe­cial pro­ce­s­sing situations

Artic­le 85 Pro­ce­s­sing and Free­dom of Expres­si­on and Information

(Mem­ber Sta­tes shall, by law, recon­ci­le the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data under this Regu­la­ti­on with the right to free­dom of expres­si­on and infor­ma­ti­on, inclu­ding pro­ce­s­sing for jour­na­li­stic pur­po­ses and for sci­en­ti­fic, artis­tic or lite­ra­ry purposes.
(For pro­ce­s­sing car­ri­ed out for jour­na­li­stic pur­po­ses or for sci­en­ti­fic, artis­tic or lite­ra­ry pur­po­ses, Mem­ber Sta­tes shall pro­vi­de for dero­ga­ti­ons or exemp­ti­ons from Chap­ter II (Prin­ci­ples), Chap­ter III (Rights of the data sub­ject), Chap­ter IV (Con­trol­ler and pro­ces­sor), Chap­ter V (Trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons), Chap­ter VI (Inde­pen­dent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties), Chap­ter VII (Coope­ra­ti­on and con­si­sten­cy), and Chap­ter IX (Rules appli­ca­ble to spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing situa­tions) whe­re neces­sa­ry to recon­ci­le the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data with the free­dom of expres­si­on and information.
(Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall noti­fy the Com­mis­si­on of the pro­vi­si­ons of law which it has adopted pur­su­ant to para­graph 2 and, wit­hout delay, of any sub­se­quent amen­ding law or amend­ment thereto.
Reci­tals
(153) In the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes, rules on free­dom of expres­si­on and infor­ma­ti­on, inclu­ding by jour­na­lists, sci­en­tists, artists and/or wri­ters, should be recon­ci­led with the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data under this Regu­la­ti­on. Dero­ga­ti­ons and exemp­ti­ons from cer­tain pro­vi­si­ons of this Regu­la­ti­on should app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data sole­ly for jour­na­li­stic pur­po­ses or for sci­en­ti­fic, artis­tic or lite­ra­ry pur­po­ses, whe­re this is neces­sa­ry to recon­ci­le the right to pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data with the right to free­dom of expres­si­on and infor­ma­ti­on as gua­ran­teed by Artic­le 11 of the Char­ter. This should app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data in the audio­vi­su­al sec­tor and in news and press archi­ves. Mem­ber Sta­tes should the­r­e­fo­re adopt legis­la­ti­ve mea­su­res regu­la­ting the dero­ga­ti­ons and excep­ti­ons neces­sa­ry for the pur­po­se of balan­cing the­se fun­da­men­tal rights. Mem­ber Sta­tes should adopt such dero­ga­ti­ons and excep­ti­ons in rela­ti­on to the gene­ral prin­ci­ples, the rights of the data sub­ject, the con­trol­ler and pro­ces­sor, the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, the inde­pen­dent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties, coope­ra­ti­on and con­si­sten­cy, and spe­ci­fic data pro­ce­s­sing situa­tions. If the­se dero­ga­ti­ons or excep­ti­ons dif­fer from one Mem­ber Sta­te to ano­ther, the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te to which the con­trol­ler is sub­ject should be applied. In order to take into account the importance of the right to free­dom of expres­si­on in a demo­cra­tic socie­ty, terms such as jour­na­lism that refer to this free­dom must be inter­pre­ted broadly.

Artic­le 86 Pro­ce­s­sing and public access to offi­ci­al documents

Per­so­nal data con­tai­ned in offi­ci­al docu­ments held by a public aut­ho­ri­ty or a public body or by a pri­va­te body for the per­for­mance of a task car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest may be dis­c­lo­sed by the public aut­ho­ri­ty or body in accordance with Uni­on law or the law of the Mem­ber Sta­te to which the public aut­ho­ri­ty or body is sub­ject, in order to recon­ci­le public access to offi­ci­al docu­ments with the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data under this Regu­la­ti­on.
Reci­tals
(154) This Regu­la­ti­on allo­ws the prin­ci­ple of public access to offi­ci­al docu­ments to be taken into account in its appli­ca­ti­on. Public access to offi­ci­al docu­ments can be con­side­red as a public inte­rest. Per­so­nal data con­tai­ned in docu­ments held by a public aut­ho­ri­ty or a public body should be able to be publicly dis­c­lo­sed by that aut­ho­ri­ty or body whe­re pro­vi­ded for by Uni­on law or by the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes to which it is sub­ject. Such legis­la­ti­on should recon­ci­le public access to offi­ci­al docu­ments and the re-use of public sec­tor infor­ma­ti­on with the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data and may the­r­e­fo­re regu­la­te the neces­sa­ry con­si­sten­cy with the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data under this Regu­la­ti­on. The refe­rence to public aut­ho­ri­ties and public sec­tor bodies in this con­text should include all public aut­ho­ri­ties or other bodies cover­ed by the law of the rele­vant Mem­ber Sta­te on public access to docu­ments. Direc­ti­ve 2003/98/EC of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (14) is wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to, and in no way affects, the level of pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data under the pro­vi­si­ons of Uni­on and Mem­ber Sta­te law and, in par­ti­cu­lar, does not have the effect of modi­fy­ing the rights and obli­ga­ti­ons set out in this Regu­la­ti­on. In par­ti­cu­lar, that Direc­ti­ve should not app­ly to docu­ments to which access is pro­hi­bi­ted or rest­ric­ted under Mem­ber Sta­tes’ access regimes for rea­sons of pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data, or to parts of docu­ments which are acce­s­si­ble under tho­se regimes, whe­re they con­tain per­so­nal data in respect of which legis­la­ti­on pro­vi­des that their fur­ther use is incom­pa­ti­ble with the law on the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data.

Artic­le 87 Pro­ce­s­sing of the natio­nal iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on number

Mem­ber Sta­tes may fur­ther spe­ci­fy the spe­ci­fic con­di­ti­ons under which a natio­nal iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on num­ber or other iden­ti­fier of gene­ral appli­ca­ti­on may be the sub­ject of pro­ce­s­sing. In that case, the natio­nal iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on num­ber or other iden­ti­fier of gene­ral appli­ca­ti­on may only be used sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards for the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject under this Regulation. 

Artic­le 88 Data pro­ce­s­sing in the employment context

(1) Mem­ber Sta­tes may, by law or by coll­ec­ti­ve agree­ment, lay down more spe­ci­fic rules to ensu­re the pro­tec­tion of rights and free­doms with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data of employees in the employment con­text, in par­ti­cu­lar for the pur­po­ses of recruit­ment, per­for­mance of the employment con­tract, inclu­ding the per­for­mance of obli­ga­ti­ons laid down by law or by coll­ec­ti­ve agree­ment, manage­ment, plan­ning and orga­nizati­on of work, equa­li­ty and diver­si­ty at work, health and safe­ty at work, pro­tec­tion of employers’ or cli­ents’ pro­per­ty, as well as for pur­po­ses of clai­ming indi­vi­du­al or coll­ec­ti­ve rights and bene­fits rela­ted to employment and for pur­po­ses of ter­mi­na­ti­on of employment.
(2) The­se rules shall include appro­pria­te and spe­ci­fic mea­su­res to safe­guard human dignity, legi­ti­ma­te inte­rests and fun­da­men­tal rights of the data sub­ject, in par­ti­cu­lar with regard to trans­pa­ren­cy of pro­ce­s­sing, trans­fer of per­so­nal data within a group of under­ta­kings or a group of under­ta­kings enga­ged in joint eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty and work­place moni­to­ring systems.
(Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall noti­fy to the Com­mis­si­on by 25 May 2018 the pro­vi­si­ons of law which it adopts pur­su­ant to para­graph 1 and, wit­hout delay, any sub­se­quent amend­ment affec­ting them.

Artic­le 89 Safe­guards and exemp­ti­ons in rela­ti­on to pro­ce­s­sing for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses and sta­tis­ti­cal purposes

(1. Pro­ce­s­sing for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses shall be sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards for the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject in accordance with this Regu­la­ti­on. Tho­se safe­guards shall ensu­re that tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res are in place to ensu­re, in par­ti­cu­lar, respect for the prin­ci­ple of data mini­mizati­on. The­se mea­su­res may include pseud­ony­mizati­on, whe­re it is pos­si­ble to ful­fill the­se pur­po­ses in this way. In all cases whe­re the­se pur­po­ses can be ful­fil­led by fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing in which the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of data sub­jects is not or no lon­ger pos­si­ble, the­se pur­po­ses shall be ful­fil­led in this way.
(Whe­re per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses, and sub­ject to the con­di­ti­ons and safe­guards refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may pro­vi­de for excep­ti­ons to the rights refer­red to in Artic­les 15, 16, 18 and 21 to the ext­ent that tho­se rights are likely to ren­der impos­si­ble or serious­ly pre­ju­di­ce the achie­ve­ment of the spe­ci­fic pur­po­ses and such excep­ti­ons are neces­sa­ry for the achie­ve­ment of tho­se purposes.
(Whe­re per­so­nal data are pro­ce­s­sed for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, and sub­ject to the con­di­ti­ons and safe­guards refer­red to in para­graph 1 of this Artic­le, Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law may pro­vi­de for excep­ti­ons to the rights refer­red to in Artic­les 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 to the ext­ent that tho­se rights are likely to ren­der impos­si­ble or serious­ly pre­ju­di­ce the achie­ve­ment of the spe­ci­fic pur­po­ses and such excep­ti­ons are neces­sa­ry for the achie­ve­ment of tho­se purposes.
(4) If the pro­ce­s­sing refer­red to in para­graphs 2 and 3 ser­ves ano­ther pur­po­se at the same time, the excep­ti­ons shall app­ly only to the pro­ce­s­sing for the pur­po­ses refer­red to in tho­se paragraphs.
Reci­tals
(156) The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses should be sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards for the rights and free­doms of the data sub­ject under this Regu­la­ti­on. Tho­se safe­guards should ensu­re that tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res are in place to ensu­re, in par­ti­cu­lar, the prin­ci­ple of data mini­mizati­on. Fur­ther pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses shall only take place after the con­trol­ler has asses­sed the fea­si­bi­li­ty of ful­fil­ling tho­se pur­po­ses by pro­ce­s­sing per­so­nal data whe­re the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of data sub­jects is not or no lon­ger pos­si­ble, pro­vi­ded that appro­pria­te safe­guards are in place (such as the pseud­ony­mizati­on of per­so­nal data). Mem­ber Sta­tes should pro­vi­de appro­pria­te safe­guards in rela­ti­on to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses. Mem­ber Sta­tes should be allo­wed, under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons and sub­ject to appro­pria­te safe­guards for data sub­jects, to pro­vi­de for cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons and exemp­ti­ons in rela­ti­on to infor­ma­ti­on requi­re­ments and the rights to rec­ti­fi­ca­ti­on, era­su­re, to be for­got­ten, to rest­ric­tion of pro­ce­s­sing, to data por­ta­bi­li­ty, and to object to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for archi­ving pur­po­ses in the public inte­rest, for sci­en­ti­fic or histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses, or for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses. The con­di­ti­ons and safe­guards in que­sti­on may pro­vi­de for spe­ci­fic pro­ce­du­res for the exer­cise of tho­se rights by data sub­jects – whe­re appro­pria­te in view of the pur­po­ses pur­sued by the spe­ci­fic pro­ce­s­sing – and for tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res to mini­mi­ze the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data with regard to the prin­ci­ples of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty and neces­si­ty. The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sci­en­ti­fic pur­po­ses should also com­ply with other rele­vant legis­la­ti­on, for exam­p­le for cli­ni­cal trials.
(157) By lin­king infor­ma­ti­on from regi­stries, rese­ar­chers can gain new insights of gre­at value regar­ding com­mon dise­a­ses such as car­dio­vas­cu­lar dise­a­se, can­cer, and depres­si­on. The use of regi­stries can yield bet­ter rese­arch results becau­se they are based on a lar­ger pro­por­ti­on of the popu­la­ti­on. In the social sci­en­ces, rese­arch using regi­stries allo­ws rese­ar­chers to gain cri­ti­cal insights into the long-term asso­cia­ti­on of a ran­ge of social cir­cum­stances, such as unem­ployment and edu­ca­ti­on with other life cir­cum­stances. Rese­arch obtai­ned through regi­stries pro­vi­des robust, high-qua­li­ty evi­dence that can form the basis for the for­mu­la­ti­on and imple­men­ta­ti­on of know­ledge-based poli­ci­es, impro­ve the qua­li­ty of life for lar­ge num­bers of peo­p­le, and impro­ve the effi­ci­en­cy of social ser­vices. The­r­e­fo­re, in order to faci­li­ta­te sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch, per­so­nal data may be pro­ce­s­sed for sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses, sub­ject to appro­pria­te con­di­ti­ons and safe­guards laid down in Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law.
(158) This Regu­la­ti­on should also app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for archi­ving pur­po­ses, not­ing that the Regu­la­ti­on should not app­ly to decea­sed per­sons. Public aut­ho­ri­ties or public or pri­va­te bodies hol­ding records of public inte­rest should be under a legal obli­ga­ti­on, in accordance with Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law, to acqui­re, pre­ser­ve, eva­lua­te, pro­cess, descri­be, com­mu­ni­ca­te, pro­mo­te, dis­se­mi­na­te and pro­vi­de access to records of endu­ring value for the gene­ral public inte­rest. Mem­ber Sta­tes should also be allo­wed to pro­vi­de that per­so­nal data are fur­ther pro­ce­s­sed for archi­val pur­po­ses, for exam­p­le, with a view to pro­vi­ding spe­ci­fic infor­ma­ti­on rela­ted to poli­ti­cal beha­vi­or under for­mer tota­li­ta­ri­an regimes, geno­ci­de, cri­mes against huma­ni­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar the Holo­caust, and war crimes.
(159) This Regu­la­ti­on should also app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses. The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses within the mea­ning of this Regu­la­ti­on should be inter­pre­ted broad­ly to include pro­ce­s­sing for, for exam­p­le, tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ment and demon­stra­ti­on, fun­da­men­tal rese­arch, applied rese­arch and pri­va­te­ly fun­ded rese­arch. In addi­ti­on, it should take into account the objec­ti­ve of crea­ting a Euro­pean area of rese­arch as set out in Artic­le 179(1) TFEU. The sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses should also include stu­dies car­ri­ed out in the public inte­rest in the field of public health. In order to com­ply with the spe­ci­fi­ci­ties of the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses, spe­ci­fic con­di­ti­ons should app­ly in par­ti­cu­lar as regards the publi­ca­ti­on or other dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data in the con­text of sci­en­ti­fic pur­po­ses. Whe­re the results of sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch, in par­ti­cu­lar in the area of public health, give rise to fur­ther mea­su­res in the inte­rest of the data sub­ject, the gene­ral rules of this Regu­la­ti­on should app­ly to tho­se measures.
(160) This Regu­la­ti­on should also app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for histo­ri­cal rese­arch pur­po­ses. This should include histo­ri­cal rese­arch and rese­arch in the field of genea­lo­gy, not­ing that this Regu­la­ti­on should not app­ly to decea­sed persons.
(161) For the pur­po­ses of con­sent to par­ti­ci­pa­te in sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch acti­vi­ties in the con­text of cli­ni­cal tri­als, the rele­vant pro­vi­si­ons of Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 536/2014 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (15) should apply.
(162) This Regu­la­ti­on should also app­ly to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses. Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law should deter­mi­ne, within the limits of this Regu­la­ti­on, the sta­tis­ti­cal con­tent, access con­trol, spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons for the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses and appro­pria­te mea­su­res to safe­guard the rights and free­doms of data sub­jects and to ensu­re sta­tis­ti­cal con­fi­den­tia­li­ty. Under the term “sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses” means any ope­ra­ti­on of coll­ec­tion and pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data neces­sa­ry for the per­for­mance of sta­tis­ti­cal rese­arch and the pro­duc­tion of sta­tis­ti­cal results. The­se sta­tis­ti­cal results may be fur­ther used for various pur­po­ses, inclu­ding sci­en­ti­fic rese­arch pur­po­ses. In the con­text of sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses, it is under­s­tood that the results of pro­ce­s­sing for sta­tis­ti­cal pur­po­ses are not per­so­nal data, but aggre­ga­ted data, and the­se results or per­so­nal data are not used for mea­su­res or decis­i­ons regar­ding indi­vi­du­al natu­ral persons.
(163) The con­fi­den­ti­al infor­ma­ti­on coll­ec­ted by the Uni­on and natio­nal sta­tis­ti­cal aut­ho­ri­ties for the pro­duc­tion of offi­ci­al Euro­pean sta­tis­tics and offi­ci­al natio­nal sta­tis­tics should be pro­tec­ted. Euro­pean sta­tis­tics should be deve­lo­ped, pro­du­ced and dis­se­mi­na­ted in accordance with the sta­tis­ti­cal prin­ci­ples set out in Artic­le 338(2) TFEU and natio­nal sta­tis­tics should also com­ply with the law of the Mem­ber Sta­tes. Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 223/2009 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (16 ) con­ta­ins more detail­ed pro­vi­si­ons on the con­fi­den­tia­li­ty of Euro­pean statistics.

Artic­le 90 Con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obligations

Mem­ber Sta­tes may regu­la­te the powers of the super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties refer­red to in points (e) and (f) of Artic­le 58(1) in rela­ti­on to con­trol­lers or pro­ces­sors who are sub­ject to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy or an equi­va­lent obli­ga­ti­on of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty under Uni­on or Mem­ber Sta­te law or under an obli­ga­ti­on impo­sed by the com­pe­tent natio­nal aut­ho­ri­ties, to the ext­ent neces­sa­ry and pro­por­tio­na­te to recon­ci­le the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data with the obli­ga­ti­on of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty. The­se rules shall app­ly only in rela­ti­on to per­so­nal data obtai­ned or coll­ec­ted by the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor in the cour­se of an acti­vi­ty sub­ject to such a duty of confidentiality.
(Each Mem­ber Sta­te shall noti­fy the Com­mis­si­on by 25 May 2018 of the pro­vi­si­ons it adopts pur­su­ant to para­graph 1 and shall noti­fy it wit­hout delay of any sub­se­quent amend­ment affec­ting them.
Reci­tals
(164) With regard to the powers of super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties to obtain from the con­trol­ler or pro­ces­sor access to per­so­nal data or to its pre­mi­ses, Mem­ber Sta­tes may, within the limits of this Regu­la­ti­on, regu­la­te by law the pro­tec­tion of pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy or other equi­va­lent duties of con­fi­den­tia­li­ty to the ext­ent neces­sa­ry to recon­ci­le the right to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data with a duty of pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy. This is wit­hout pre­ju­di­ce to the exi­sting obli­ga­ti­ons of Mem­ber Sta­tes to adopt rules on pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy whe­re requi­red by Uni­on law.

Artic­le 91 Exi­sting data pro­tec­tion rules of churches and reli­gious asso­cia­ti­ons or communities

(Whe­re a church or a reli­gious asso­cia­ti­on or com­mu­ni­ty in a Mem­ber Sta­te applies com­pre­hen­si­ve rules on the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to pro­ce­s­sing at the time of the ent­ry into force of this Regu­la­ti­on, tho­se rules may con­ti­n­ue to app­ly pro­vi­ded that they are brought into line with this Regulation.
(2) Churches and reli­gious asso­cia­ti­ons or com­mu­ni­ties that app­ly com­pre­hen­si­ve data pro­tec­tion rules pur­su­ant to para­graph (1) shall be sub­ject to super­vi­si­on by an inde­pen­dent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, which may be of a spe­ci­fic natu­re, pro­vi­ded that it meets the con­di­ti­ons set forth in Chap­ter VI.
Reci­tals
(165) In accordance with Artic­le 17 TFEU, this Regu­la­ti­on respects and does not pre­ju­di­ce the sta­tus under exi­sting con­sti­tu­tio­nal law of churches and reli­gious asso­cia­ti­ons or com­mu­ni­ties in the Mem­ber States.

Chap­ter X Dele­ga­ted and imple­men­ting acts

Artic­le 92 Exer­cise of delegation

(1) The power to adopt dele­ga­ted acts is con­fer­red on the Com­mis­si­on sub­ject to the con­di­ti­ons laid down in this Article.
The power to adopt dele­ga­ted acts refer­red to in Artic­les 12(8) and 43(8) shall be con­fer­red on the Com­mis­si­on for an inde­ter­mi­na­te peri­od of time from 24 May 2016.
3. The dele­ga­ti­on of power refer­red to in Artic­les 12(8) and 43(8) may be revo­ked at any time by the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment or by the Coun­cil. The decis­i­on of revo­ca­ti­on shall put an end to the dele­ga­ti­on of the power spe­ci­fi­ed in that decis­i­on. It shall take effect the day fol­lo­wing the publi­ca­ti­on of the decis­i­on in the Offi­ci­al Jour­nal of the Euro­pean Uni­on or at a later date spe­ci­fi­ed the­r­ein. The decis­i­on of revo­ca­ti­on shall not affect the vali­di­ty of any dele­ga­ted acts alre­a­dy in force.
(4. As soon as it adopts a dele­ga­ted act, the Com­mis­si­on shall noti­fy it simul­ta­neous­ly to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and to the Council.
A dele­ga­ted act adopted pur­su­ant to Artic­le 12(8) and Artic­le 43(8) shall enter into force only if no objec­tion has been expres­sed eit­her by the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment or the Coun­cil within a peri­od of three months of noti­fi­ca­ti­on of that act to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and the Coun­cil or if, befo­re the expiry of that peri­od, the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and the Coun­cil have both infor­med the Com­mis­si­on that they will not object. At the initia­ti­ve of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment or the Coun­cil, that peri­od shall be exten­ded by three months.
Reci­tals
(166) In order to achie­ve the objec­ti­ves of this Regu­la­ti­on, name­ly to pro­tect the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of natu­ral per­sons, and in par­ti­cu­lar their right to the pro­tec­tion of their per­so­nal data, and to ensu­re the free flow of per­so­nal data within the Uni­on, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Artic­le 290 TFEU should be dele­ga­ted to the Com­mis­si­on. Dele­ga­ted acts should be adopted in par­ti­cu­lar in rela­ti­on to the cri­te­ria and requi­re­ments appli­ca­ble to cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pro­ce­du­res, the infor­ma­ti­on to be repre­sen­ted by stan­dar­di­zed icons and the pro­ce­du­res for making tho­se icons available. It is of par­ti­cu­lar importance that the Com­mis­si­on car­ry out appro­pria­te con­sul­ta­ti­ons, inclu­ding at expert level, as part of its pre­pa­ra­to­ry work. The Com­mis­si­on, when pre­pa­ring and dra­wing-up dele­ga­ted acts, should ensu­re a simul­ta­neous, time­ly and appro­pria­te trans­mis­si­on of rele­vant docu­ments to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and to the Council.
(167) In order to ensu­re uni­form con­di­ti­ons for the imple­men­ta­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on, imple­men­ting powers should be con­fer­red on the Com­mis­si­on whe­re pro­vi­ded for in this Regu­la­ti­on. Tho­se powers should be exer­cis­ed in accordance with Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 182/2011 of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil. In this con­text, the Com­mis­si­on should con­sider spe­ci­fic mea­su­res for micro, small and medi­um-sized enterprises.
(170) Sin­ce the objec­ti­ve of this Regu­la­ti­on, name­ly to ensu­re an equi­va­lent level of data pro­tec­tion for natu­ral per­sons and the free flow of per­so­nal data in the Uni­on, can­not be suf­fi­ci­ent­ly achie­ved by the Mem­ber Sta­tes but can rather, by rea­son of the sca­le or effects of the action, be bet­ter achie­ved at Uni­on level, the Uni­on may adopt mea­su­res, in accordance with the prin­ci­ple of sub­si­dia­ri­ty as set out in Artic­le 5 of the Trea­ty on Euro­pean Uni­on (TEU). In accordance with the prin­ci­ple of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty, as set out in that Artic­le, this Regu­la­ti­on does not go bey­ond what is neces­sa­ry in order to achie­ve that objective.

Artic­le 93 Com­mit­tee procedure

(1. The Com­mis­si­on shall be assi­sted by a com­mit­tee. That com­mit­tee shall be a com­mit­tee within the mea­ning of Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 182/2011.
(Whe­re refe­rence is made to this para­graph, Artic­le 5 of Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
(Whe­re refe­rence is made to this para­graph, Artic­le 8 of Regu­la­ti­on (EU) No 182/2011 shall app­ly in con­junc­tion with Artic­le 5 thereof.
Reci­tals
(168) For the adop­ti­on of imple­men­ting acts regar­ding stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses for con­tracts bet­ween con­trol­lers and pro­ces­sors as well as bet­ween pro­ces­sors; codes of con­duct; tech­ni­cal stan­dards and pro­ce­du­res for cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on; requi­re­ments for the ade­qua­cy of the level of data pro­tec­tion in a third coun­try, a ter­ri­to­ry or a spe­ci­fic sec­tor of that third coun­try or in an inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on; stan­dard safe­guards; for­mats and pro­ce­du­res for the exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on bet­ween con­trol­lers, pro­ces­sors and super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties with regard to bin­ding inter­nal data pro­tec­tion rules; admi­ni­stra­ti­ve assi­stance; and arran­ge­ments for the elec­tro­nic exch­an­ge of infor­ma­ti­on bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and bet­ween super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties and the Com­mit­tee should the review pro­ce­du­re be applied.

Chap­ter XI Final Provisions

Artic­le 94 Repeal of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC

(1) Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC is repea­led effec­ti­ve May 25, 2018.
(2. Refe­ren­ces to the repea­led Direc­ti­ve shall be con­strued as refe­ren­ces to this Regu­la­ti­on. Refe­ren­ces to the Working Par­ty on the Pro­tec­tion of Indi­vi­du­als with regard to the Pro­ce­s­sing of Per­so­nal Data estab­lished by Artic­le 29 of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC shall be con­strued as refe­ren­ces to the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board estab­lished by this Regulation.
Reci­tals
(171) Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC should be repea­led by this Regu­la­ti­on. Pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons that have alre­a­dy star­ted at the date of appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on should be brought in line with it within two years of the ent­ry into force of this Regu­la­ti­on. Whe­re the pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons are based on con­sent pur­su­ant to Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC, it is not neces­sa­ry for the data sub­ject to give con­sent again if the natu­re of the con­sent alre­a­dy given com­plies with the con­di­ti­ons laid down in this Regu­la­ti­on, so that the con­trol­ler may con­ti­n­ue the pro­ce­s­sing after the date of appli­ca­ti­on of this Regu­la­ti­on. Com­mis­si­on decis­i­ons or decis­i­ons based on Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC and aut­ho­rizati­ons of super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties shall remain in force until they are amen­ded, repla­ced or repealed.

Artic­le 95 Rela­ti­on­ship with Direc­ti­ve 2002/58/EC

This Regu­la­ti­on does not impo­se addi­tio­nal obli­ga­ti­ons on natu­ral or legal per­sons with regard to pro­ce­s­sing in con­nec­tion with the pro­vi­si­on of publicly available elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices in public com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons net­works in the Uni­on to the ext­ent that they are sub­ject to spe­ci­fic obli­ga­ti­ons laid down in Direc­ti­ve 2002/58/EC which pur­sue the same objec­ti­ve.
Reci­tals
(173) This Regu­la­ti­on should app­ly to all mat­ters con­cer­ning the pro­tec­tion of fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data which are not sub­ject to the obli­ga­ti­ons laid down in Direc­ti­ve 2002/58/EC of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (18), which pur­sue the same objec­ti­ve, inclu­ding the obli­ga­ti­ons of the con­trol­ler and the rights of natu­ral per­sons. In order to cla­ri­fy the rela­ti­on­ship bet­ween this Regu­la­ti­on and Direc­ti­ve 2002/58/EC, that Direc­ti­ve should be amen­ded accor­din­gly. Once this Regu­la­ti­on is adopted, Direc­ti­ve 2002/58/EC should be sub­ject to a review, in par­ti­cu­lar to ensu­re con­si­sten­cy with this Regulation -.

Artic­le 96 on agree­ments alre­a­dy concluded

Inter­na­tio­nal agree­ments invol­ving the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons con­clu­ded by Mem­ber Sta­tes befo­re 24 May 2016 and which are in con­for­mi­ty with Uni­on law in force befo­re that date shall remain in force until amen­ded, repla­ced or terminated. 

Artic­le 97 Com­mis­si­on reports

(By 25 May 2020, and every four years the­re­af­ter, the Com­mis­si­on shall sub­mit to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and to the Coun­cil a report on the eva­lua­ti­on and review of this Regu­la­ti­on. The reports shall be made public.
(2. As part of the eva­lua­tions and reviews refer­red to in para­graph 1, the Com­mis­si­on shall exami­ne in par­ti­cu­lar the appli­ca­ti­on and ope­ra­ti­on of
a) of Chap­ter V on the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries or to inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­ons, in par­ti­cu­lar with regard to the decis­i­ons adopted pur­su­ant to Artic­le 45(3) of this Regu­la­ti­on and the fin­dings adopted pur­su­ant to Artic­le 25(6) of Direc­ti­ve 95/46/EC,
b) of Chap­ter VII on coope­ra­ti­on and consistency.
(For the pur­po­se refer­red to in para­graph 1, the Com­mis­si­on may request infor­ma­ti­on from Mem­ber Sta­tes and super­vi­so­ry authorities.
(In the assess­ments and reviews refer­red to in para­graphs 1 and 2, the Com­mis­si­on shall take into account the views and fin­dings of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, the Coun­cil and other rele­vant bodies or sources.
(5. The Com­mis­si­on shall, if neces­sa­ry, sub­mit appro­pria­te pro­po­sals to amend this Regu­la­ti­on, taking into account, in par­ti­cu­lar, deve­lo­p­ments in infor­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy and pro­gress in the infor­ma­ti­on society.
Reci­tals
(172) The EDPS was con­sul­ted in accordance with Artic­le 28(2) of Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 45/2001 and issued an opi­ni­on on 7 March 2012 (17).

Artic­le 98 Review of other Uni­on acts on data protection

The Com­mis­si­on shall, whe­re appro­pria­te, sub­mit legis­la­ti­ve pro­po­sals to amend other Uni­on acts rela­ting to the pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data in order to ensu­re con­si­stent and coher­ent pro­tec­tion of natu­ral per­sons with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing. This con­cerns in par­ti­cu­lar the rules on the pro­tec­tion of indi­vi­du­als with regard to the pro­ce­s­sing of such data by the Uni­on insti­tu­ti­ons, bodies, offices and agen­ci­es and on the free move­ment of such data. 

Artic­le 99 Ent­ry into force and application

(1. This Regu­la­ti­on shall enter into force on the twen­tieth day fol­lo­wing that of its publi­ca­ti­on in the Offi­ci­al Jour­nal of the Euro­pean Union.
(2) It shall app­ly from May 25, 2018.