The Committee asked the European Parliament ( LIBE - Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs) voted on October 21 amendments to the text of the draft Regulation submitted by the Commission on 25 January 2012 after more than 20 months of intense debate in which they are were presented more than 3,000 amendments. It now expects to start negotiations between the two "co -legislators ," Parliament and the EU Council , the text with the amendments of the Council, which has not yet completed its examination of the proposal.

The amended Regulations - reads the communication of the Guarantor - maintains many of the settings of the Commission's original proposal , as the applicability of the Regulation to the treatments carried out by non-EU companies if they use personal data of users EU to offer their products or services.

Other confirmations include, for example, the consent of the person concerned (which must be " explicit " rather than just " unequivocal " as in the Directive 95 /46) or the right to data portability . Were also kept some innovative proposals such as the appointment (required) a " Data Protection Officer" by the holders of treatment ( according to the criteria , however, different from those indicated by the Commission ), the introduction of a general obligation for all holders of treatments to notify data breaches ( breaches date ) Authorities privacy and in some cases also to those concerned.

It was instead eliminated the requirement , currently in force , to notify the Data Protection Authority treatments . The amendments also introduce "simplified" versions of certain provisions of Regulation future : the right to be forgotten , for example, has been converted into a right to correct or treatment limitation in enhanced form . They were then made ​​more stringent the requirements to transfer personal data to third countries, with the introduction of an article providing for the authorization requirement of Trustees national before sending data at the request of courts or administrative authorities of third countries. It also changed the system of administrative penalties , that all National supervisory authorities should be able to impose , but which are free to define within a threshold maximum fine and in compliance with a set of criteria laid down in the text.

There have also been changes to the proposal for a Regulation concerning the mechanism of "single window" ( one-stop -shop ) and cooperation between supervisory authorities through the " consistency mechanism ." According to the Parliament , the OSS must allow multinational corporations to communicate with a single partner in the EU ( the Authority policy of the country where they have their " main plant "), but the role of this Authority (defined precisely " authority leader " ) must consist in the coordination of a process of co- decision in which all the authority of the United States affected by a treatment must participate and have a voice .

Some aspects contained in the Regulations - emphasizes the Guarantor - remain a cause for concern : in particular , the introduction of the definition of " pseudonym given " in terms that do not explain fully how the data pseudonym remains a matter that can identify a person , the rules on profiling and the very definition of profiling , the introduction sought by the Parliament of a " European certificate " of data protection , a sort of "seal - quality " which would allow data controllers to benefit from a number of derogations and exemptions, and the where supervision would be outsourced to third parties , ie other than supervisory Authority .

The Commission of the European Parliament has also dismissed the amendments to the draft directive that will apply to the processing of data for purposes of Justice and Police , with the objective of maintaining a consistent and coherent approach to data protection of all citizens .

Attachment

Source: Il Sole 24 Ore   Click to listen highlighted text! First go-ahead of the negotiations between the European Parliament and Council of the European Union to reach an agreement on a shared text of the new Regulation on data protection . This is what was announced by the Privacy Guarantor.  The Committee asked the European Parliament ( LIBE - Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs) voted on October 21 amendments to the text of the draft Regulation submitted by the Commission on 25 January 2012 after more than 20 months of intense debate in which they are were presented more than 3,000 amendments. It now expects to start negotiations between the two co -legislators , Parliament and the EU Council , the text with the amendments of the Council, which has not yet completed its examination of the proposal. The amended Regulations - reads the communication of the Guarantor - maintains many of the settings of the Commissions original proposal , as the applicability of the Regulation to the treatments carried out by non-EU companies if they use personal data of users EU to offer their products or services. Other confirmations include, for example, the consent of the person concerned (which must be explicit rather than just unequivocal as in the Directive 95 /46) or the right to data portability . Were also kept some innovative proposals such as the appointment (required) a Data Protection Officer by the holders of treatment ( according to the criteria , however, different from those indicated by the Commission ), the introduction of a general obligation for all holders of treatments to notify data breaches ( breaches date ) Authorities privacy and in some cases also to those concerned. It was instead eliminated the requirement , currently in force , to notify the Data Protection Authority treatments . The amendments also introduce simplified versions of certain provisions of Regulation future : the right to be forgotten , for example, has been converted into a right to correct or treatment limitation in enhanced form . They were then made ​​more stringent the requirements to transfer personal data to third countries, with the introduction of an article providing for the authorization requirement of Trustees national before sending data at the request of courts or administrative authorities of third countries. It also changed the system of administrative penalties , that all National supervisory authorities should be able to impose , but which are free to define within a threshold maximum fine and in compliance with a set of criteria laid down in the text. There have also been changes to the proposal for a Regulation concerning the mechanism of single window ( one-stop -shop ) and cooperation between supervisory authorities through the consistency mechanism . According to the Parliament , the OSS must allow multinational corporations to communicate with a single partner in the EU ( the Authority policy of the country where they have their main plant ), but the role of this Authority (defined precisely authority leader ) must consist in the coordination of a process of co- decision in which all the authority of the United States affected by a treatment must participate and have a voice . Some aspects contained in the Regulations - emphasizes the Guarantor - remain a cause for concern : in particular , the introduction of the definition of pseudonym given in terms that do not explain fully how the data pseudonym remains a matter that can identify a person , the rules on profiling and the very definition of profiling , the introduction sought by the Parliament of a European certificate of data protection , a sort of seal - quality which would allow data controllers to benefit from a number of derogations and exemptions, and the where supervision would be outsourced to third parties , ie other than supervisory Authority . The Commission of the European Parliament has also dismissed the amendments to the draft directive that will apply to the processing of data for purposes of Justice and Police , with the objective of maintaining a consistent and coherent approach to data protection of all citizens .   Attachment   Source: Il Sole 24 Ore