EU’s GDPR reform is supposed to speed up enforcement — but the current proposal might do the opposite.
Longer deadlines More complexity Structural imbalance between users & companies Breach of fundamental rights
Possible annulment challenge upcoming. Worth following.
More on the draft law and context: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7331255318082940928/
www.linkedin.com#gdpr #dataprotection #privacylaw #eulaw #fundamentalrights #digitalrights… | Aleksandra Samonek⚖️ 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘜𝘱𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦: 𝘒𝘦𝘺 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘌𝘜 𝘎𝘋𝘗𝘙 𝘌𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 – 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦?
The EU’s ongoing trilogue negotiations on the proposed 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗗𝗣𝗥 may significantly change how privacy law and fundamental rights are implemented. The regulation intended to harmonize and accelerate enforcement across Member States is now in its final stages. However, watchdog organizations, such as the noyb.eu, Fundacja Panoptykon, European Digital Rights, and many others, raised significant concerns about the draft law’s implications. Among them:
🚫 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀: Despite initial goals of streamlining procedures, the proposed regulation introduces complex, multi-phase processes. According to noyb’s breakdown, deadlines for even basic procedural steps could already exceed 12 months, with the total time to decision potentially stretching to 2–3 years. The regulation itself won’t apply until 2026 or 2027, meaning cases may not reach enforceable deadlines until 2029.
🚫 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆: Rather than centralizing documentation in a single digital system, the proposal foresees a fragmented structure where documents must be duplicated and manually shared among over 40 national authorities. This could significantly increase administrative workload and costs across the EU.
🚫 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: The regulation introduces structural disparities between the rights afforded to companies and to individuals. For example:
👉🏽 Companies may have oral hearings; individuals typically do not.
👉🏽 Companies receive documents through their lead authority; users must request them across borders.
👉🏽 Companies are granted a “right to be heard”; users are given a more limited “opportunity to make views known.”
These provisions may conflict with fundamental rights under the EU Charter, including:
👉🏽 Right to Data Protection (Article 8)
👉🏽 Equal Treatment (Article 20)
👉🏽 Right to Good Administration (Article 41)
👉🏽 Right to a Fair Hearing and Timely Procedure (Article 47)
The implications of the draft law underscore how 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. For professionals in data protection, legal compliance, and digital rights, this regulation could significantly shape the future of GDPR application and accountability in Europe.
🔗 Links to the draft law and other resources in the comment.
#GDPR #DataProtection #PrivacyLaw #EUlaw #FundamentalRights #DigitalRights #noyb #RegulatoryReform #Compliance #DueProcess #LegalNews #LegalUpdate #DataLaw #PrivacyRights #EDRi #HumanitarianAtWork
