Guest User


a guest
Jan 28th, 2013
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 2.52 KB | None | 0 0
  1. Informal JHA Ministerial Meeting in Dublin, 17-18 January 2013:
  2. Flash Report
  4. Data protection
  6. The Presidency invited Ministers to discuss three key issues on
  7. data protection: the household-exemption (a), the right to be forgotten
  8. (b) and the proposed administrative sanctions (c).
  10. Regarding (a) Vice-President Reding explained that the current
  11. Data protection Directive does not apply to individuals processing data
  12. of a purely personal activity whilst the proposed Regulation would
  13. foresee a more differentiated regime (exclusion of individuals acting in
  14. a private capacity without gainful interest, light rules if a gainful
  15. interest was pursued, full application of the Regulation if data was
  16. processed for a professional or commercial activity). Most Member States
  17. felt that the criterion of gainful interest was not clear enough. BG,
  18. NL, PL, DK advocated to replace gainful interest with professional
  19. activity, ES and MT wished to retain the status quo, HU and EE were in
  20. favour of a more risk based approach. UK and HU wondered whether
  21. blogging would be included.
  23. Concerning (b) the Commission stressed that the right to be
  24. forgotten ensured that individuals remained in control of their data;
  25. the proposed rule was pragmatic and foresaw an obligation to act ("take
  26. all reasonable steps") but not of result. Member States supported a
  27. right to be forgotten but saw the need to further discuss its practical
  28. implementation, clarify its scope and avoid disproportionate burden. ES
  29. suggested limiting it to online and other necessary areas, UK felt the
  30. proposed provision would negatively affect smaller businesses.
  32. As regards (c) the Commission highlighted that sanctions had to
  33. be appropriate, proportionate and dissuasive as they would otherwise not
  34. be a deterrent. Member States stressed that it was for the national
  35. authorities to apply the sanctions in view of the specific case at
  36. stake. A number of Member States (ES, BG, UK, PT, FI, MT, EL, CY) wished
  37. to foresee wider provision for warnings or reprimands or to take
  38. mitigating factors such as adherence to an approved code of conduct into
  39. account. UK, FI, EL, DK and PT considered the maximum amount (2% of
  40. annual worldwide turnover) as too high.
  42. The representative of the JURI committee suggested to retain the
  43. status quo on the household exemption and highlighted the importance of
  44. the right to be forgotten and that national authorities needed some
  45. margin on sanctions. The Commission thanked for the constructive remarks
  46. of which it had taken good note.
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment