What changed between the adopted text of 10 Apr 2024 and the adopted text of 21 Oct 2025

Removed:P9_TA(2024)0187

Added:P10_TA(2025)0238

Changed:LayingGeneral downData Protection Regulation: additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU)the 2016/679Regulation

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

PE755.005

Changed:Amendments adopted by the European Parliament onlegislative 10resolution Aprilof 202421 October 2025 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (COM(2023)0348 – C9-0231/2023 – 2023/0202(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Removed:Recital 2: (2) In order to provide for the smooth and effective functioning of the cooperation and dispute resolution mechanism provided for in Articles 60 and 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is necessary to lay down rules concerning the conduct of proceedings by the supervisory authorities in cross-border cases, and by the Board during dispute resolution, including the handling of cross-border complaints. It is also necessary for this reason to lay down rules concerning the exercise of the right to be heard by the parties prior to the adoption of decisions by supervisory authorities and, as the case may be, by the Board. This Regulation thereby aims at protecting the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). To achieve this objective, when applying provisions of this Regulation, all data protection authorities should act in an impartial and independent manner and in accordance with the rule of law, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

Change 1

Added:The European Parliament,

Removed:Recital 2 a (new): (2a) This Regulation and Chapter VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 only govern certain elements of the cooperation procedure, when supervisory authorities of more than one Member State participate in the procedure. This Regulation does not apply when a party lodges a complaint directly with a lead supervisory authority in another Member State.

Added:– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0348),

Removed:Recital 2 b (new): (2b) The procedural law of each Member State should apply to the supervisory authorities insofar as this Regulation does not harmonise a matter. Some procedural elements, such as the horizontal burden of proof of the controller in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, are already governed by Union law. In line with the primacy of Union law, supervisory authorities should not apply national procedural law where it is in conflict with this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Cooperation among supervisory authorities should not be limited because of differences in national procedural law. Supervisory authorities should make use of all options under applicable national law to allow parties in another Member State to participate in procedures. This may include remote video participation, interpreters or generally available means of communication.

Added:– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90231/2023),

Removed:Recital 3: (3) Complaints are an essential source of information for detecting infringements of data protection rules. Defining clear and efficient procedures for the handling of complaints in cross-border cases is necessary since the complaint may be dealt with by a supervisory authority other than the one to which the complaint was lodged. To this end, it is recommended that an efficient mechanism for communication between supervisory authorities should be created used so as to facilitate rapid and secure sharing of information necessary to resolve complaints in accordance with data protection rules.

Added:– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Removed:Recital 4: (4) In order to be admissible a complaint should contain certain minimum information about the alleged violation, whether ongoing or past. The cessation of a violation should not be sufficient grounds to reject a complaint. Therefore, in order to assist complainants in submitting the necessary facts to the supervisory authorities, a complaint template should be provided. The information specified in the template should be required only in cases of cross-border processing in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, though the template may be used by supervisory authorities for cases that do not concern cross-border processing. The information may be submitted electronically or by post. No additional information should be required for a complaint to be deemed admissible. Where a complaint does not meet the minimum requirements, the supervisory authority should reject it and inform the complainant about the missing information. The complainant can then resubmit a complete complaint. While the complainant should not be required to contact the party under investigation before submitting a complaint, if the complainant was in contact with the party under investigation before submitting the complaint relating to the same matter, he or she should submit the communication related to that contact. It should be possible for supervisory authorities to facilitate the submission of complaints in a user-friendly electronic format and bearing in mind the needs of persons with disabilities.

Added:– having regard to the reasoned opinion submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Swedish Parliament, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

Removed:Recital 5: (5) Supervisory authorities are obliged to decide on complaints within a reasonable timeframe. What is a reasonable timeframe depends on the circumstances of each case and, in particular, its context, the various procedural steps followed by the lead supervisory authority, the conduct of the parties in the course of the procedure and the complexity of the case. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter require a reasonable overall duration of procedures. Given that this includes judicial remedies under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, procedures before supervisory authorities should typically not take more than nine months, unless exceptional circumstances arise. This Regulation foresees prolongations for delays or disruptions that are outside of the control of the lead supervisory authority. To that end, sufficient funding and staffing should be ensured in order to guarantee a timely and efficient handling of cases that does not affect the right to a good administration.

Added:– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 December 2023,

Removed:Recital 5 a (new): (5a) The direct interaction between Member States’ supervisory authorities and the parties is governed by national procedural law, insofar as Regulation (EU) 2016/679, this Regulation or Union law do not take primacy. In the case of indirect interaction of a lead supervisory authority with a party via another supervisory authority, the latter authority’s procedural law should apply to any direct interaction with the party. In line with Article 56(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a complainant has the right to solely communicate with the supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged. This does not prevent the complainant to directly communicate with another supervisory authority, including the lead supervisory authority, which may be more efficient.

Added:– having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 75(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 27 June 2025 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Removed:Recital 5 b (new): (5b) To ensure that minimum requirements of fair and efficient procedures are met in all cross-border cases, including in Member States where there is no codified national procedural law, the Regulation sets directly applicable rules based on Article 41 of the Charter.

Added:– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

Removed:Recital 5 c (new): (5c) It should be possible to apply, in accordance with national procedural law applicable to the supervisory authority that the party directly interacts with, strictly necessary and proportionate limitations in relation to the disclosure or the further use of legally protected information, such as personal data or trade secrets protected under Directive (EU) 2016/9431a. This could include the internal deliberations and decision-making of the authority. The least intrusive measures, such as limitation of the use of information or blackening of information should be applied. Parties should always be informed that information was withheld from them, and why. / 1a Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1.)

Added:– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs,

Removed:Recital 5 d (new): (5d) The lead supervisory authority manages the case in line with this Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and its national procedural law, while fully cooperating with other supervisory authorities in a spirit of common understanding and trust. Other supervisory authorities should provide any relevant information and their views to the lead supervisory authority. The lead supervisory authority should structure the case in an efficient and expedient way taking full account of the views of other supervisory authorities. At the same time, the procedure should be in line with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular the one-stop-shop dispute resolution architecture and the competences of the lead supervisory authority.

Added:– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0045/2024),

Removed:Recital 5 e (new): (5e) Supervisory authorities may also start additional procedures, for example in the case of systemic or repetitive infringements. This should however, not lead to any interference with the rights of the parties.

Added:1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

Removed:Recital 5 f (new): (5f) Violations may concern the rights of multiple data subjects, therefore, evidence from procedures may need to be used in other procedures to facilitate an efficient procedure and consistent decision making. In order to objectively assess the amount of non-material damages based on the average data subject, civil courts may benefit from relying on established facts and evidence to determine a claim under Article 82 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Added:2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

Removed:Recital 5 g (new): (5g) Each supervisory authority should define one or more languages that it accepts for incoming information by other supervisory authorities. An additional joint “cooperation language” should be defined which all supervisory authorities must accept for incoming or outgoing information. In case of judicial remedies, the supervisory authority against which a judicial remedy is brought should have the duty to translate all relevant documents to the accepted languages.

Added:3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Removed:Recital 6: (6) Each complaint handled by a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 57(1), point (f), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 is to be investigated with all due diligence to the extent appropriate bearing in mind that every use of powers by the supervisory authority must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive in view of ensuring compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. While assessing the extent appropriate of an investigation, supervisory authorities should aim to deliver a satisfactory resolution to the complainant, which requires investigating all relevant legal and factual elements arising from the complaint, to ensure that a decision can be jointly taken and an effective remedy to the complainant can be quickly delivered. Without prejudice to the necessity of providing a satisfactory resolution to the complainant within a short timeframe, supervisory authorities should investigate to a degree that allows them to satisfy themselves as to whether a complaint is indicative of more serious or systemic infringements. Planning the procedure is important to ensure a quick result. Supervisory authorities should not refer to the rights under Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as a reason to limit the investigation of a complaint. To ensure compliance with Article 47 of the Charter, the handling of a complaint should always lead to an appealable decision. Unless a complaint is withdrawn, it should not be possible for complaints to be closed or otherwise terminated without a dec…

Added:P10_TC1-COD(2023)0202

Removed:Recital 7: (7) The lead supervisory authority should provide the supervisory authorities instant remote access to a joint case file that holds all relevant documents of the case, including all internal or confidential information, as well as a translation of all documents to the cooperation language. In addition, the lead supervisory authority should actively inform the other supervisory authorities on major changes that may require imminent action or closer attention. Defining clear and efficient procedures for the handling of complaints in cross-border cases is also necessary, since the complaint may be dealt with by a supervisory authority other than the one with which the complaint was lodged.

Added:Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 October 2025 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2025/… of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down additional procedural rules on the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Removed:Recital 8: (8) The competent supervisory authority should provide the parties with remote access to the joint case file, but may restrict this right of access under certain circumstances. Such access should allow the use of an effective judicial remedy in line with Article 47 of the Charter.

Added:(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2025/2518.)

Removed:Recital 9: (9) In order for supervisory authorities to bring a swift end to infringements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and to deliver a quick resolution for complainants, supervisory authorities should be able to endeavour, where appropriate, to resolve complaints by amicable settlement between the parties. Supervisory authorities should not make the handling of a complaint contingent on participation in an amicable settlement process. Settlements should be able to take the form of a contract between the parties under applicable law, but should bind the authorities. The fact that an individual complaint has been resolved through an amicable settlement does not prevent the competent supervisory authority from pursuing an ex officio case, for example in the case of systemic or repetitive infringements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. However, such an ex officio possibility should not be used to defer decisions on complaints.

Removed:Recital 10: (10) In order to guarantee the effective functioning of the cooperation and consistency mechanisms in Chapter VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it is important that cross-border cases are resolved in a timely fashion and in line with the spirit of sincere and effective cooperation that underlies Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The lead supervisory authority should exercise its competence within a framework of close cooperation with the other supervisory authorities concerned. Likewise, supervisory authorities concerned should actively engage in the investigation at an early stage in an endeavour to reach a consensus, making full use of the tools provided by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. This should be in line with the ‘one-stop-shop’ mechanism of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and guarantee, where applicable, non-discriminatory treatment of parties, legal certainty and independence of issuing of decisions by the supervisory authorities.

Removed:Recital 11: (11) It is particularly important for supervisory authorities to reach consensus on key aspects of the case via the summary of key issues and comments on that summary as early as possible and prior to the adoption of the draft decision referred to in Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, thereby reducing the number of cases submitted to the dispute resolution mechanism in Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and ultimately ensuring the quick resolution of cross-border cases.

Removed:Recital 12: (12) Cooperation between supervisory authorities should be based on open dialogue which allows concerned supervisory authorities to meaningfully impact the course of the investigation by sharing their experiences and views with the lead supervisory authority. The supervisory authority with which a complaint has been lodged or which requests an ex-officio action may provide the lead supervisory authority with a summary of key issues setting out its preliminary view on the main issues in an investigation. The lead supervisory authority should draft the final summary of key issues. The summary of key issues should be part of the joint case file, and should be a living document that is updated by the lead supervisory authority during the course of the procedure. It should be provided at a sufficiently early stage to allow effective inclusion of supervisory authorities concerned. Concerned supervisory authorities should have the opportunity to provide their comments on any update of the summary of key issues. The supervisory authorities should be able to raise any dispute with the Board. Supervisory authorities should endeavour to achieve consensus as early as possible on the scope of the investigation.

Removed:Recital 13: (13) In the interest of effective inclusive cooperation between all supervisory authorities concerned and the lead supervisory authority, any documents submitted by concerned supervisory authorities and the parties should be concise and worded in sufficiently clear and precise terms to be easily understandable to all supervisory authorities. Supervisory authorities may therefore limit the length of submissions by the parties. The legal arguments should be grouped by reference to the part of the summary of key issues to which they relate.

Removed:Recital 14: (14) Cases that do not raise contentious issues (non-contentious cases) do not require extensive discussion between supervisory authorities in order to reach a consensus and could, therefore, be dealt with more quickly. When none of the supervisory authorities concerned raise comments on the summary of key issues, the lead supervisory authority should communicate the draft decision within three months from the receipt of the complaint.

Removed:Recital 15: (15) Supervisory authorities should avail themselves of all means necessary to achieve a consensus in a spirit of sincere and effective cooperation. Therefore, if there is a divergence in opinion between the supervisory authorities concerned and the lead supervisory authority regarding the scope or procedural issues of a case, the supervisory authorities should raise the matter quickly with the Board. The Board should make the necessary procedural determinations. The Board and supervisory authorities should endeavour to complete ongoing proceedings as quickly as possible. The lead supervisory authority or one of the supervisory authorities concerned should also be able to request an urgent binding decision of the Board without a request under Articles 61 or 62 having been made.

Removed:Recital 16: deleted

Removed:Recital 17: (17) To enable the complainant to exercise her or his right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 78 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, handling of any complaint should always lead to a decision which may be challenged before a national court.

Removed:Recital 18: deleted

Removed:Recital 19: (19) It is necessary to clarify the division of responsibilities between the lead supervisory authority and the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged in the case of rejection of a complaint in a cross-border case. As the point of contact for the complainant during the investigation, the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged should be responsible for all communications with the complainant. All such communications should be shared with the lead supervisory authority. Since under Article 60(8) and (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 the supervisory authority with which the complaint was lodged has the responsibility of adopting the final decision which needs to comply with its national procedural law, rejecting the complaint that supervisory authority should also be involved by the lead supervisory authority in preparing the draft decision under Article 60(3) and any final decision under Article 60(7) to (9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Removed:Recital 21: (21) In order to effectively safeguard the right to good administration and the rights of defence as enshrined in the Charter including the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, it is important to provide for clear rules on the exercise of this right for all parties involved in a case. Every party should have the right to decline the right to be heard.

Removed:Recital 22: (22) The rules regarding the administrative procedure applied by supervisory authorities when enforcing Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should ensure that the parties effectively have the right to be heard and opportunity to make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts, objections and circumstances put forward by the supervisory authority throughout the procedure, thereby enabling them to exercise their rights of defence. The preliminary findings set out the preliminary position on the alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 following investigation. They thus constitute an essential procedural safeguard which ensures that the right to be heard is observed. The parties should be provided with all the necessary documents required to effectively comment on matters relevant to the investigation, by receiving access to the administrative joint case file.

Removed:Recital 23: (23) The preliminary findings should be couched in terms that, even if succinct, are sufficiently clear to enable the parties to properly identify the nature of the alleged infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The obligation of giving the parties all the information necessary to enable them to be heard is satisfied if the final decision only takes into consideration facts on which the parties have had the opportunity of making known their views. The final decision of the lead supervisory authority is not, however, necessarily required to be a replica of the preliminary findings. The lead supervisory authority should be permitted in the final decision to take account of the responses of the parties to the preliminary findings, and, where applicable, the revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and the decision by the Board resolving the dispute between the supervisory authorities under Article 65(1), point (a), of that Regulation. The lead supervisory authority should be able to carry out its own assessment of the facts and the legal qualifications put forward by the parties in order either to abandon the objections when the supervisory authority finds them to be unfounded or to supplement and redraft its arguments, both in fact and in law, in support of the objections which it maintains.

Removed:Recital 24: (24) The parties should be provided with a right to be heard at appropriate stages of the procedure, in particular prior to the submission of a revised draft decision under Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or the adoption of a binding decision by the Board pursuant to Article 65(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Removed:Recital 25: (25) Complainants should be given the possibility to be associated with the proceedings initiated by a supervisory authority with a view to identifying or clarifying issues relating to a potential infringement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The fact that a supervisory authority has already initiated an investigation concerning the subject matter of the complaint or will deal with the complaint in an ex officio investigation subsequent to the receipt of the complaint does not bar the qualification of a data subject as complainant.

Removed:Recital 25 a (new): (25a) Notwithstanding the fact that the parties under investigation and the complainant are not in the same procedural situation, there are circumstances in which complainants can be in a position to adduce arguments and evidence during an investigation which can help the progress of the investigation. This is particularly the case in circumstances in which a not-for-profit body, organisation or association has lodged a complaint on behalf of a data subject or on its own initiative under Article 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Supervisory authorities should facilitate the hearing of such complainants at all stages of the investigation, including ex officio investigations, while also maintaining their independence.

Removed:Recital 26: deleted

Removed:Recital 27: (27) When setting deadlines and limiting the length of submissions for parties to provide their views on preliminary findings, supervisory authorities should have regard to the complexity of the issues raised in preliminary findings as well as the capacity of the parties under investigation and complainants to respond, in order to ensure that the parties have sufficient opportunity to meaningfully provide their views on the issues raised. This should however not lead to unduly long procedures.

Removed:Recital 28: deleted

Removed:Recital 29: (29) In the interest of the efficient and inclusive conclusion of the dispute resolution procedure, where all supervisory authorities should be in a position to contribute their views and bearing in mind the time constraints during dispute resolution, the form and structure of relevant and reasoned objections should meet certain requirements. Therefore, relevant and reasoned objections should clearly identify the disagreement with the draft decision and should be worded in sufficiently clear, coherent and precise terms.