Amendment 219· Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 27
~Alternative
Text of the amendment
As tabled
Wordingagainst the Commission’s
(27) This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides that personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. In order to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. Taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the definition of personal data, it is necessary to provide further clarity on when a natural person should be considered to be identifiable. The existence of additional information enabling the data subject to be identified does not, in itself, mean that pseudonymised data must be regarded as constituting, in all cases and for every person or entity, personal data for the purposes of the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, it should be clarified that information is not to be considered personal data for a given entity where that entity does not have means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. A potential subsequent transmission of that information to third parties who have means reasonably allowing them to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, renders that information personal data only for those third parties who have such means at their disposal. In assessing means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person, account should be taken not only of the means available to the entity processing the information, but also of means reasonably accessible to third parties operating within the same relevant sectoral or territorial environment. For data generated in the course of primary economic activities characterised by a strong territorial dimension, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, the combination of geographical, production-related and size-related variables constitutes a specific risk factor for the identification of the natural person and, as a general rule, supports maintaining the classification of such data as personal data. An entity for which the information is not personal data, in principle, does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In this respect the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that a means of identifying the data subject is not reasonably likely to be used where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant, in that the identification of that data subject is prohibited by law or impossible in practice, for example because it would involve a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and labour. An example of a prohibition against reidentification can be found in the obligations of health data users in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council¹⁵. The Commission, together with the European Data Protection Board, should support controllers in the application of this updated definition by stipulating technical criteria in an implementing act.
Struck CommissionHighlighted amendment
Justification
Il dato aziendale agricolo è di norma re-identificabile attraverso la specificità semantica delle variabili che lo compongono, non attraverso l’accesso a informazioni aggiuntive esterne. La sepecificità semantica si concretizza nella combinazione di localizzazione, coltura, dimensione e resa è sufficiente a identificare un singolo produttore per qualsiasi soggetto operante nel contesto locale, indipendentemente dai mezzi tecnici a disposizione dell’entità che tratta i dati. L’emendamento àncora la valutazione dei mezzi ragionevolmente utilizzabili al contesto settoriale e territoriale, coerentemente con la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea in materia di identificabilità indiretta.
Target
Wording of the targeted provisionlaw in force, Commission proposal, latest Council text
Commission proposalCOM(2025) 837
This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides that personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. In order to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. Taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the definition of personal data, it is necessary to provide further clarity on when a natural person should be considered to be identifiable. The existence of additional information enabling the data subject to be identified does not, in itself, mean that pseudonymised data must be regarded as constituting, in all cases and for every person or entity, personal data for the purposes of the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, it should be clarified that information is not to be considered personal data for a given entity where that entity does not have means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. A potential subsequent transmission of that information to third parties who have means reasonably allowing them to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, renders that information personal data only for those third parties who have such means at their disposal. An entity for which the information is not personal data, in principle, does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In this respect the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that a means of identifying the data subject is not reasonably likely to be used where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant, in that the identification of that data subject is prohibited by law or impossible in practice, for example because it would involve a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and labour. An example of a prohibition against reidentification can be found in the obligations of health data users in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council³⁵. The Commission, together with the European Data Protection Board, should support controllers in the application of this updated definition by stipulating technical criteria in an implementing act.
Council text of 22 October 2026ST 14756/26
This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection.
Cite this amendment
Amendment 219 (Dario Nardella), European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, amendments 79–250 to the draft report on COM(2025) 837 (CJ72-AM-786820, PE786.820v01-00, 27 July 2026), pp. 139–141
Link, short form and official text
Amendment 219 (Dario Nardella), European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, amendments 79–250 to the draft report on COM(2025) 837 (CJ72-AM-786820, PE786.820v01-00, 27 July 2026), pp. 139–141
ITRE–LIBE Amendment 219 (CJ72-AM-786820), p. 139