Articles

Proposal for an EU regulation on the free flow of non-personal data

Proposal for an EU regulation on the free flow of non-personal data

Proposal for an EU regulation on the free flow of non-personal data

29.09.2017 BE law

On 13 September 2017, the EU Parliament and Council have issued a proposal for a regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the EU. Other than the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679), this regulation aims to offer a uniform legal framework for the flow of data other than personal data. This regulatory development is a welcome initiative for our digital and “big data”-driven economy, where electronic data, whether personal or not, are at the heart of.

The proposal pursues a triple objective: (i) improving the mobility of non-personal data across borders, (ii) ensuring the availability of data to competent authorities for regulatory control purposes and (iii) facilitating the switching of providers and the porting of data for professional users of data processing services. The proposal has a broad scope of application and encompasses all types of data processing services and the usage of all types of IT systems, whether located on-site or outsourced to a service provider. Territorially, the regulation applies to processing provided as a service to users residing or established in the Union or processing carried out by a natural or legal person residing or established in the Union for its own needs.

The proposal lays down rules on data localization requirements (article 4), data availability for competent authorities (article 5), and data porting for professional users (article 6) and includes a SPOC-mechanism for cooperation between the Member States (article 7).

Team

Related news

07.08.2018 NL law
General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect

Short Reads - On 25 May 2018, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect. The GDPR replaces the EU's prior directive governing the processing and transfer of personal data, which was in place since 1995. As a regulation, the GDPR is directly applicable in all 28 EU member states and thus removes the need for national implementing legislation. However, the GDPR allows member states discretion in certain areas, as a result of which national legislation may still be implemented. In the Netherlands, the GDPR Implementation Act came into effect on 25 May 2018.

Read more

01.08.2018 EU law
Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Short Reads - On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

Read more

01.08.2018 EU law
Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Short Reads - On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

Read more

01.08.2018 EU law
General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons

Short Reads - On 13 July 2018, the General Court annulled the EUR 1.13 million fine imposed on Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Stührk) by the European Commission in 2013 for Stührk's participation in the shrimp cartel. The Court ruled that the Commission had failed to adequately state reasons in the contested decision as to why the cartel participants were granted divergent fine reductions.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring