interactive GDPR 2016/0679 EN

1. The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the decision:

(a)	is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller;

(b)	is authorised by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject and which also lays down suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests; or

(c)	is based on the data subject's explicit consent.

3. In the cases referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 2, the data controller shall implement suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests, at least the right to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller, to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision.

4. Decisions referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be based on special categories of personal_data referred to in Article 9(1), unless point (a) or (g) of Article 9(2) applies and suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are in place.

Section 5

Restrictions

Article 33

Notification of a personal_data breach to the supervisory_authority

1. In the case of a personal_data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal_data breach to the supervisory_authority competent in accordance with Article 55, unless the personal_data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Where the notification to the supervisory_authority is not made within 72 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.

2. The processor shall notify the controller without undue delay after becoming aware of a personal_data breach.

3. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall at least:

(a)	describe the nature of the personal_data breach including where possible, the categories and approximate number of data subjects concerned and the categories and approximate number of personal_data records concerned;

(b)	communicate the name and contact details of the data protection officer or other contact point where more information can be obtained;

(c)	describe the likely consequences of the personal_data breach;

(d)	describe the measures taken or proposed to be taken by the controller to address the personal_data breach, including, where appropriate, measures to mitigate its possible adverse effects.

4. Where, and in so far as, it is not possible to provide the information at the same time, the information may be provided in phases without undue further delay.

5. The controller shall document any personal_data breaches, comprising the facts relating to the personal_data breach, its effects and the remedial action taken. That documentation shall enable the supervisory_authority to verify compliance with this Article.

Article 35

Data protection impact assessment

1. Where a type of processing in particular using new technologies, and taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall, prior to the processing, carry out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the protection of personal_data. A single assessment may address a set of similar processing operations that present similar high risks.

2. The controller shall seek the advice of the data protection officer, where designated, when carrying out a data protection impact assessment.

3. A data protection impact assessment referred to in paragraph 1 shall in particular be required in the case of:

(a)	a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects relating to natural persons which is based on automated processing, including profiling, and on which decisions are based that produce legal effects concerning the natural person or similarly significantly affect the natural person;

(b)	processing on a large scale of special categories of data referred to in Article 9(1), or of personal_data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10; or

(c)	a systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale.

4. The supervisory_authority shall establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations which are subject to the requirement for a data protection impact assessment pursuant to paragraph 1. The supervisory_authority shall communicate those lists to the Board referred to in Article 68.

5. The supervisory_authority may also establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations for which no data protection impact assessment is required. The supervisory_authority shall communicate those lists to the Board.

6. Prior to the adoption of the lists referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, the competent supervisory_authority shall apply the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 63 where such lists involve processing activities which are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects or to the monitoring of their behaviour in several Member States, or may substantially affect the free movement of personal_data within the Union.

7. The assessment shall contain at least:

(a)	a systematic description of the envisaged processing operations and the purposes of the processing, including, where applicable, the legitimate interest pursued by the controller;

(b)	an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the processing operations in relation to the purposes;

(c)	an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects referred to in paragraph 1; and

(d)	the measures envisaged to address the risks, including safeguards, security measures and mechanisms to ensure the protection of personal_data and to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation taking into account the rights and legitimate interests of data subjects and other persons concerned.

8. Compliance with approved codes of conduct referred to in Article 40 by the relevant controllers or processors shall be taken into due account in assessing the impact of the processing operations performed by such controllers or processors, in particular for the purposes of a data protection impact assessment.

9. Where appropriate, the controller shall seek the views of data subjects or their representatives on the intended processing, without prejudice to the protection of commercial or public interests or the security of processing operations.

10. Where processing pursuant to point (c) or (e) of Article 6(1) has a legal basis in Union law or in the law of the Member State to which the controller is subject, that law regulates the specific processing operation or set of operations in question, and a data protection impact assessment has already been carried out as part of a general impact assessment in the context of the adoption of that legal basis, paragraphs 1 to 7 shall not apply unless Member States deem it to be necessary to carry out such an assessment prior to processing activities.

11. Where necessary, the controller shall carry out a review to assess if processing is performed in accordance with the data protection impact assessment at least when there is a change of the risk represented by processing operations.

Article 64

Opinion of the Board

1. The Board shall issue an opinion where a competent supervisory_authority intends to adopt any of the measures below. To that end, the competent supervisory_authority shall communicate the draft decision to the Board, when it:

(a)	aims to adopt a list of the processing operations subject to the requirement for a data protection impact assessment pursuant to Article 35(4);

(b)	concerns a matter pursuant to Article 40(7) whether a draft code of conduct or an amendment or extension to a code of conduct complies with this Regulation;

(c)	aims to approve the criteria for accreditation of a body pursuant to Article 41(3) or a certification body pursuant to Article 43(3);

(d)	aims to determine standard data protection clauses referred to in point (d) of Article 46(2) and in Article 28(8);

(e)	aims to authorise contractual clauses referred to in point (a) of Article 46(3); or

(f)	aims to approve binding_corporate_rules within the meaning of Article 47.

2. Any supervisory_authority, the Chair of the Board or the Commission may request that any matter of general application or producing effects in more than one Member State be examined by the Board with a view to obtaining an opinion, in particular where a competent supervisory_authority does not comply with the obligations for mutual assistance in accordance with Article 61 or for joint operations in accordance with Article 62.

3. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Board shall issue an opinion on the matter submitted to it provided that it has not already issued an opinion on the same matter. That opinion shall be adopted within eight weeks by simple majority of the members of the Board. That period may be extended by a further six weeks, taking into account the complexity of the subject matter. Regarding the draft decision referred to in paragraph 1 circulated to the members of the Board in accordance with paragraph 5, a member which has not objected within a reasonable period indicated by the Chair, shall be deemed to be in agreement with the draft decision.

4. Supervisory authorities and the Commission shall, without undue delay, communicate by electronic means to the Board, using a standardised format any relevant information, including as the case may be a summary of the facts, the draft decision, the grounds which make the enactment of such measure necessary, and the views of other supervisory authorities concerned.

5. The Chair of the Board shall, without undue, delay inform by electronic means:

(a)	the members of the Board and the Commission of any relevant information which has been communicated to it using a standardised format. The secretariat of the Board shall, where necessary, provide translations of relevant information; and

(b)	the supervisory_authority referred to, as the case may be, in paragraphs 1 and 2, and the Commission of the opinion and make it public.

6. The competent supervisory_authority shall not adopt its draft decision referred to in paragraph 1 within the period referred to in paragraph 3.

7. The supervisory_authority referred to in paragraph 1 shall take utmost account of the opinion of the Board and shall, within two weeks after receiving the opinion, communicate to the Chair of the Board by electronic means whether it will maintain or amend its draft decision and, if any, the amended draft decision, using a standardised format.

8. Where the supervisory_authority concerned informs the Chair of the Board within the period referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article that it does not intend to follow the opinion of the Board, in whole or in part, providing the relevant grounds, Article 65(1) shall apply.

Article 66

Urgency procedure

1. In exceptional circumstances, where a supervisory_authority concerned considers that there is an urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects, it may, by way of derogation from the consistency mechanism referred to in Articles 63, 64 and 65 or the procedure referred to in Article 60, immediately adopt provisional measures intended to produce legal effects on its own territory with a specified period of validity which shall not exceed three months. The supervisory_authority shall, without delay, communicate those measures and the reasons for adopting them to the other supervisory authorities concerned, to the Board and to the Commission.

2. Where a supervisory_authority has taken a measure pursuant to paragraph 1 and considers that final measures need urgently be adopted, it may request an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision from the Board, giving reasons for requesting such opinion or decision.

3. Any supervisory_authority may request an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision, as the case may be, from the Board where a competent supervisory_authority has not taken an appropriate measure in a situation where there is an urgent need to act, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects, giving reasons for requesting such opinion or decision, including for the urgent need to act.

4. By derogation from Article 64(3) and Article 65(2), an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall be adopted within two weeks by simple majority of the members of the Board.

Article 83

General conditions for imposing administrative fines

1. Each supervisory_authority shall ensure that the imposition of administrative fines pursuant to this Article in respect of infringements of this Regulation referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

2. Administrative fines shall, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, be imposed in addition to, or instead of, measures referred to in points (a) to (h) and (j) of Article 58(2). When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to the following:

(a)	the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement taking into account the nature scope or purpose of the processing concerned as well as the number of data subjects affected and the level of damage suffered by them;

(b)	the intentional or negligent character of the infringement;

(c)	any action taken by the controller or processor to mitigate the damage suffered by data subjects;

(d)	the degree of responsibility of the controller or processor taking into account technical and organisational measures implemented by them pursuant to Articles 25 and 32;

(e)	any relevant previous infringements by the controller or processor;

(f)	the degree of cooperation with the supervisory_authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement;

(g)	the categories of personal_data affected by the infringement;

(h)	the manner in which the infringement became known to the supervisory_authority, in particular whether, and if so to what extent, the controller or processor notified the infringement;

(i)	where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been ordered against the controller or processor concerned with regard to the same subject-matter, compliance with those measures;

(j)	adherence to approved codes of conduct pursuant to Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms pursuant to Article 42; and

(k)	any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement.

3. If a controller or processor intentionally or negligently, for the same or linked processing operations, infringes several provisions of this Regulation, the total amount of the administrative fine shall not exceed the amount specified for the gravest infringement.

4. Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 10 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 2 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:

(a)	the obligations of the controller and the processor pursuant to Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39 and 42 and 43;

(b)	the obligations of the certification body pursuant to Articles 42 and 43;

(c)	the obligations of the monitoring body pursuant to Article 41(4).

5. Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:

(a)	the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9;

(b)	the data subjects' rights pursuant to Articles 12 to 22;

(c)	the transfers of personal_data to a recipient in a third country or an international_organisation pursuant to Articles 44 to 49;

(d)	any obligations pursuant to Member State law adopted under Chapter IX;

(e)	non-compliance with an order or a temporary or definitive limitation on processing or the suspension of data flows by the supervisory_authority pursuant to Article 58(2) or failure to provide access in violation of Article 58(1).

6. Non-compliance with an order by the supervisory_authority as referred to in Article 58(2) shall, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

7. Without prejudice to the corrective powers of supervisory authorities pursuant to Article 58(2), each Member State may lay down the rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State.

8. The exercise by the supervisory_authority of its powers under this Article shall be subject to appropriate procedural safeguards in accordance with Union and Member State law, including effective judicial remedy and due process.

9. Where the legal system of the Member State does not provide for administrative fines, this Article may be applied in such a manner that the fine is initiated by the competent supervisory_authority and imposed by competent national courts, while ensuring that those legal remedies are effective and have an equivalent effect to the administrative fines imposed by supervisory authorities. In any event, the fines imposed shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Those Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisions of their laws which they adopt pursuant to this paragraph by 25 May 2018 and, without delay, any subsequent amendment law or amendment affecting them.

whereas

(71) The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention.
Such processing includes ‘ profiling’ that consists of any form of automated processing of personal_data evaluating the personal aspects relating to a natural person, in particular to analyse or predict aspects concerning the data subject's performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences or interests, reliability or behaviour, location or movements, where it produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
However, decision-making based on such processing, including profiling, should be allowed where expressly authorised by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject, including for fraud and tax-evasion monitoring and prevention purposes conducted in accordance with the regulations, standards and recommendations of Union institutions or national oversight bodies and to ensure the security and reliability of a service provided by the controller, or necessary for the entering or performance of a contract between the data subject and a controller, or when the data subject has given his or her explicit consent.
In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision.
Such measure should not concern a child.

- = -

(86) The controller should communicate to the data subject a personal_data breach, without undue delay, where that personal_data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the natural person in order to allow him or her to take the necessary precautions.
The communication should describe the nature of the personal_data breach as well as recommendations for the natural person concerned to mitigate potential adverse effects.
Such communications to data subjects should be made as soon as reasonably feasible and in close cooperation with the supervisory_authority, respecting guidance provided by it or by other relevant authorities such as law-enforcement authorities.
For example, the need to mitigate an immediate risk of damage would call for prompt communication with data subjects whereas the need to implement appropriate measures against continuing or similar personal_data breaches may justify more time for communication.

- = -

(87) It should be ascertained whether all appropriate technological protection and organisational measures have been implemented to establish immediately whether a personal_data breach has taken place and to inform promptly the supervisory_authority and the data subject.
The fact that the notification was made without undue delay should be established taking into account in particular the nature and gravity of the personal_data breach and its consequences and adverse effects for the data subject.
Such notification may result in an intervention of the supervisory_authority in accordance with its tasks and powers laid down in this Regulation.

- = -

(130) Where the supervisory_authority with which the complaint has been lodged is not the lead supervisory_authority, the lead supervisory_authority should closely cooperate with the supervisory_authority with which the complaint has been lodged in accordance with the provisions on cooperation and consistency laid down in this Regulation.
In such cases, the lead supervisory_authority should, when taking measures intended to produce legal effects, including the imposition of administrative fines, take utmost account of the view of the supervisory_authority with which the complaint has been lodged and which should remain competent to carry out any investigation on the territory of its own Member State in liaison with the competent supervisory_authority.

- = -

(135) In order to ensure the consistent application of this Regulation throughout the Union, a consistency mechanism for cooperation between the supervisory authorities should be established.
That mechanism should in particular apply where a supervisory_authority intends to adopt a measure intended to produce legal effects as regards processing operations which substantially affect a significant number of data subjects in several Member States.
It should also apply where any supervisory_authority concerned or the Commission requests that such matter should be handled in the consistency mechanism.
That mechanism should be without prejudice to any measures that the Commission may take in the exercise of its powers under the Treaties.

- = -

(138) The application of such mechanism should be a condition for the lawfulness of a measure intended to produce legal effects by a supervisory_authority in those cases where its application is mandatory.
In other cases of cross-border relevance, the cooperation mechanism between the lead supervisory_authority and supervisory authorities concerned should be applied and mutual assistance and joint operations might be carried out between the supervisory authorities concerned on a bilateral or multilateral basis without triggering the consistency mechanism.

- = -

(143) Any natural or legal person has the right to bring an action for annulment of decisions of the Board before the Court of Justice under the conditions provided for in Article 263 TFEU.
As addressees of such decisions, the supervisory authorities concerned which wish to challenge them have to bring action within two months of being notified of them, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.
Where decisions of the Board are of direct and individual concern to a controller, processor or complainant, the latter may bring an action for annulment against those decisions within two months of their publication on the website of the Board, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU.
Without prejudice to this right under Article 263 TFEU, each natural or legal person should have an effective judicial remedy before the competent national court against a decision of a supervisory_authority which produces legal effects concerning that person.
Such a decision concerns in particular the exercise of investigative, corrective and authorisation powers by the supervisory_authority or the dismissal or rejection of complaints.
However, the right to an effective judicial remedy does not encompass measures taken by supervisory authorities which are not legally binding, such as opinions issued by or advice provided by the supervisory_authority.
Proceedings against a supervisory_authority should be brought before the courts of the Member State where the supervisory_authority is established and should be conducted in accordance with that Member State's procedural law.
Those courts should exercise full jurisdiction, which should include jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before them.

- = -

(170) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure an equivalent level of protection of natural persons and the free flow of personal_data throughout the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

- = -

dal 2004 diritto e informatica