[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) Supervisory authorities shall make use of all options under applicable national law to allow parties in another Member State to participate in procedures. This may include remote video conference, or generally available electronic means of communication.

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

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

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

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

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

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

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

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

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

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

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 2 a (new)

(2a) ‘party’ means the party or parties under investigation, the complainant(s) and any third party to the case as defined under national law;

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)

Article2a Common minimum standards of procedure (1) Without prejudice to additional rights under relevant national procedural law, each party shall have at least the right to: (a) have their case handled impartially and fairly, and to be treated equally, even if they are before different supervisory authorities in different jurisdictions (“fair procedure and equality of arms”); (b) be heard before any measure is taken that would adversely affect the party, including before the decision to uphold, fully or partially dismiss or reject a complaint is adopted (“right to be heard”); (c) have access to the joint case file, except to any internal deliberations (“procedural transparency”);

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. A supervisory authority may provide automated translations and unofficial translations.

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17

Article 17 Right to be heard in relation to revised draft decision 1. Where the lead supervisory authority considers that the revised draft decision within the meaning of Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 raises elements on which the parties under investigation should have the opportunity to make their views known, the lead supervisory authority shall, prior to the submission of the revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provide the parties under investigation with the possibility to make their views known on such new elements. 2. The lead supervisory authority shall set a time-limit within which the parties under investigation may make known their views.deleted

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 a (new)

Article28a Mutual recognition and execution of decisions 1. A supervisory authority may request another supervisory authority to enforce a final decision issued under Regulation (EU) 2016/679. 2. The requesting supervisory authority shall: (a) certify that the decision is taken in accordance with its national laws and procedures and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and constitutes a final decision; (b) certify that it is not reasonably possible to execute the decision in its own territory; (c) includes a copy of the final decision. 3. The requested supervisory authority shall recognize the decision of the requesting supervisory authority, without any further formality being required and the decision shall be deemed to have the same effect as if it had been made by the requested supervisory authority. 4. The requested supervisory authority shall take all necessary measures for execution provided under national law and Regulation (EU) 2016/279 without undue delay and under the same conditions as a decision issued by the requested supervisory authority. 5. Contrary to paragraphs 3 and 4 the requested supervisory shall not execute a request by the requesting supervisory authority if, on the basis of specific and objective evidence: (a) the decision relates to a conduct which is lawful under the law of the requested supervisory authority; (b) the decision has been imposed on a person or entity who under the law of the requested supervisory authority is exempt from liability; (c) the execution of the request would be manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State of the requested supervisory authority; (d) the execution of the request would entail a manifest breach of relevant fundamental rights and freedoms as set out in the Charter; (e) the request is incomplete or manifestly incorrect or does not correspond to the underlying decision and the request has not been completed or corrected following the consultation of the requesting supervisory authority; (f) the request does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2. 6. In any of the cases referred to in paragraph 5, before deciding not to execute the decision, whether wholly or partially, the requested supervisory authority shall contact the requesting supervisory authority and where appropriate, shall request the requesting supervisory authority to supply any necessary information without undue delay. Any decision not to execute the decision shall be taken without undue delay and shall be notified immediately to the requesting supervisory. 7. If necessary, the requested supervisory authority shall convert the amount of a fine or the amount of money to be paid as included in the decision, into the currency of the State of the requested supervisory authority at the rate of exchange obtaining at the time when the decision was issued by the requesting supervisory authority. 8. Monies obtained from the enforcement of decisions shall accrue according to the laws of the Member State of the requested supervisory authority. 9. Each supervisory authority shall bear its own costs resulting from requests under this Article.

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter VI a (new)

VIa Enforcement

2023/12/15
Committee: JURI

12 Amendments of Karen MELCHIOR related to 2023/0202(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024