The EDPS, “impressed” by the Albrecht report

The European Data Protection Supervisor released an opinion on the European Parliament’s report containing amendments for the data protection legislative package, made public last week (important note: the report has not yet been adopted by the PE).

In its Opinion, the EDPS points out that it is “impressed about the huge amount of the work” it contains.

We are grateful to them since we’re impressed by the huge efforts aimed to make  a proper balance of the various –sometimes conflicting- concerns of different stakeholders in the private and public sectors. Many of the EDPS (and Working Party 29) recommendations have been fully or partly considered.

according to Giovanni Buttarelli, Assistant European Data Protection Supervisor, who attended a meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Union.

He added that:

On the same Regulation, I could find within the amendments many improvements. Being extremely selective, I would only mention that we appreciated, among others, the efforts aimed to clarify: 

1) some provisions on the rights of the individuals and the transparency of the
processing;

2) the notion of lead authority, which should be seen not as an exclusive
competence, but as a structured way of cooperation with other competent
supervisory authorities;

3) the consistency mechanism and the selective conditions which will trigger the
mechanism, with a view to prevent that the mechanism will be overburdened;

4) the necessary flexibility and the more realistic deadlines necessary for the
adoption of the EDPB opinions;

5) the more selective powers of the Commission in the consistency mechanism,
which should be limited to triggering the seizure of the EDPB and the power to
submit valuable opinions without overruling decisions in individual cases;

6) the more selective approach on delegated and implementing acts;

7) the necessary margin of appreciation with regard to the application of
administrative sanctions, to better ensure that they will always be effective and
proportional to the infringement. We also find it important to point at remedial
sanctions, which can be very effective as well;

8) the way in which the purpose limitation principle is to be respected;
9) the reduction where appropriate of administrative burdens, by focusing on what is
crucial for a substantive and effective protection of fundamental rights.

 

You can find the entire document HERE.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s