Amendment 383· GDPR Article 22(1b)
+Addition
Text of the amendment
As tabled
Wording it would add
1b.If a decision referred to in paragraph 1 is based on the outputs of a high-risk AI system within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the measures referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, as well as the safeguards accompanying a decision taken in application of points (a) and (c) thereof, shall be without prejudice to the human oversight requirements imposed in Article 14 of this Regulation. In particular, the natural persons entrusted with human oversight must be able to understand properly the system’s capabilities and limitations, to interpret correctly its outputs, to remain aware of the risk of over-reliance on these outputs, and to decide not to use the system or to override, ignore or reverse its outputs. Automated processing shall not deprive the data subject of the right to seek human intervention, express personal views and contest the decision.
GDPR Article 22 with this amendment
Amendment 383 applied to the Commission proposal, no other amendment
Unchanged: (1)
A decision which produces legal effects for a data subject or similarly significantly affects him or her may be based solely on automated processing, including profiling, only where that decision:
is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller regardless of whether the decision could be taken otherwise than by solely automated means;
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
is based on the data subject’s explicit consent.
If a decision referred to in paragraph 1 is based on the outputs of a high-risk AI system within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the measures referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, as well as the safeguards accompanying a decision taken in application of points (a) and (c) thereof, shall be without prejudice to the human oversight requirements imposed in Article 14 of this Regulation. In particular, the natural persons entrusted with human oversight must be able to understand properly the system’s capabilities and limitations, to interpret correctly its outputs, to remain aware of the risk of over-reliance on these outputs, and to decide not to use the system or to override, ignore or reverse its outputs. Automated processing shall not deprive the data subject of the right to seek human intervention, express personal views and contest the decision.
+NewUnchanged: (3) and (4)
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.
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.
Target
Wording of the targeted provisionlaw in force, Commission proposal, latest Council text
No Council text amends Article 22(1b).
Cite this amendment
Amendment 383 (Virginie Joron), European Parliament, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, amendments 329–532 to the draft opinion on COM(2025) 837 (IMCO-AM-791061, PE791.061v01-00, 16 July 2026), pp. 35–36
Link, short form and official text
Amendment 383 (Virginie Joron), European Parliament, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, amendments 329–532 to the draft opinion on COM(2025) 837 (IMCO-AM-791061, PE791.061v01-00, 16 July 2026), pp. 35–36
IMCO Amendment 383 (IMCO-AM-791061), p. 35