BRUSSELS – Global tech trade association 91proÊÓÆµ published a robust set of comments to the European Commission’s recent for a Regulation laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In its response, 91proÊÓÆµ offered both specific comments on the proposal and general recommendations to further improve GDPR enforcement so that individuals and businesses benefit from its predictable, transparent, and consistent application across the EU.
“We are broadly supportive of the Commission’s proposal and welcome its overall goal to make the handling of cross-border GDPR cases more efficient by harmonizing certain administrative procedures,” said Guido Lobrano, 91proÊÓÆµ’s Director General for Europe. “However, many improvements could be made without new legislation, and achieved by changing how the GDPR is enforced in practice, in particular by resolving complaints quickly and amicably. Good data protection outcomes for individuals should be the measure of success of the GDPR, and enforcement action should be considered as a last resort. Crucially, parts of the proposal may have the undesirable effect of weakening the GDPR’s One-Stop Shop (OSS) mechanism and the effective control of the lead supervisory authority (LSA) over the process, which are essential to making the handling of cross-border cases more efficient.”
More specifically, 91proÊÓÆµ encouraged the Commission and the co-legislators to:
-
Instead of prioritising providing tools for dispute resolution between Supervisory Authorities (SAs), the proposed Regulation should contain measures for avoiding such disputes in the first place;
-
Verify that settlements in cross-border cases are not burdened by too far-reaching obligations for coordination;
-
Incorporate transparency measures from the beginning of the enforcement process, as well as clear thresholds for admissibility of complaints;
-
Ensure the investigated parties’ right to be heard is effective in practice at all stages;
-
Preserve the confidentiality of inquiry documents by adding deterrent sanctions in order to safeguard the integrity of the decision-making process; and more.
Read 91proÊÓÆµ’s full response here.