Digital Omnibus proposal· Recital 12
Text
Recital 12 Digital Omnibus proposal as printed in the Council text of 22 October 2026
Source Council, 22 October 2026. Recital 12: ST 14756/26, page 8 · exact text page
The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear and proportionate .
How the recital changed
Each text against the text before it
| Recital | Commission19 Nov 2025Rec 12 | Council21 May 2026 | Council10 Jun 2026Rec 12 | Council18 Jun 2026Rec 12 | Council3 Sep 2026Rec 12 | Council2 Oct 2026Rec 12 | Council22 Oct 2026Rec 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compared with | law in force | the proposal | 21 May text | 10 Jun text | 18 Jun text | 3 Sep text | 2 Oct text |
| Recital 12 | 12 Added | In neither text | 12 Changed | 12 Unchanged | 12 Unchanged | 12 Changed | 12 Unchanged |
Each text against the text before it: +Added in this text, not in the text before~Changed wording changed=Unchanged same as the text before— in neither text
Parliament amendments
9 amendments to this recital
7 amendments would delete the whole recital: members of The Left, S&D, Greens/EFA and EPP, and the JURI rapporteur and the IMCO rapporteur.
| Type | The Left | S&D | Greens/EFA | EPP | ESN | Rapporteur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| − Deletion | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | · | 2 |
| ~ Alternative | · | · | 1 | · | 1 | · |
By political group
- − Deletion The Left 1 S&D 1 Greens/EFA 2 EPP 1 Rapporteur 2
- ~ Alternative Greens/EFA 1 ESN 1
Show
3 −Deletion Brando Benifei (rapporteur)Rapporteur · JURI Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Rapporteur
- Brando Benifei
- Group
- Rapporteur
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- JURI draft opinion
- Source
- Official text, pages 6–7
- Printed header
- Recital 12
9 −Deletion Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur)Rapporteur · IMCO Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Rapporteur
- Alex Agius Saliba
- Group
- Rapporteur
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- IMCO draft opinion
- Printed header
- Recital 12
86 −Deletion Emil RadevEPP · JURI Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Tabled by
- Emil Radev
- Group
- EPP
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion
- Printed header
- Recital 12
87 −Deletion David CormandGreens/EFA · JURI Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Tabled by
- David Cormand
- Group
- Greens/EFA
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion
- Printed header
- Recital 12
139 −Deletion João OliveiraThe Left · ITRE–LIBE Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.Justification
There are no grounds or substantial evidence – whether divulged by the Commission or available in the public domain – to justify the introduction of these measures, which provide much broader and much more subjective scope to refuse data-sharing requests from data subjects or third parties.
- Tabled by
- João Oliveira
- Group
- The Left
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
- Printed header
- Recital 12
140 −Deletion Elena Sancho Murillo +6S&D · ITRE–LIBE Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Tabled by
- Elena Sancho Murillo, Marina Kaljurand, Brando Benifei, José Cepeda, Lina Gálvez, Francisco Assis, Alex Agius Saliba
- Group
- S&D
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
- Printed header
- Recital 12
141 ~Alternative Damian BoeselagerGreens/EFA · ITRE–LIBE “The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Refusals should be clear…”
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation
. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Tabled by
- Damian Boeselager on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
- Group
- Greens/EFA
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
- Printed header
- Recital 12
142 ~Alternative Markus BuchheitESN · ITRE–LIBE “neutralised by disproportionate substantiation or documentation burdens. Where serious doubts exist as to the protection of trade secrets, the actual…”
(12)
The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets.The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain effectively available to data holders and must not be neutralised by disproportionate substantiation or documentation burdens. Where serious doubts exist as to the protection of trade secrets, the actual enforceability of the law, or the independence of the relevant authorities or courts, the data holder must be able to refuse disclosure. No obligation should arise to conduct in-depth analyses of foreign legal systems or to provide comprehensive evidence as a precondition for refusal.In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Tabled by
- Markus Buchheit
- Group
- ESN
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
- Printed header
- Recital 12
143 −Deletion David CormandGreens/EFA · IMCO Deletes the recital
(12) The activation of the refusal mechanism should remain voluntary, and the demonstration done only upon its activation. Data holders should not be required to conduct a full-scale analysis or demonstration of the level of trade secret protection in third countries or by a third country entity as a precondition to be able to substantiate their refusal to sharing data or to disclose trade secrets. In their demonstration, data holders may take into consideration various factors, such as insufficient or inadequate legal standards, poor or arbitrary enforcement, historical infringements, foreign disclosure obligations conflicting with Union law, limited legal recourse or remedies for Union entities, the strategic misuse of procedural tactics to undermine competitors, or undue political influence. Given the diverse range of entities, third countries, and data sharing scenarios involved, data holders should focus their assessment and demonstration on pertinent risks and act accordingly, including by setting appropriate safeguards or activating the refusal mechanism. Refusals should be clear, proportionate, and tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being applied systematically or in a generalized manner across an entire third country.- Tabled by
- David Cormand on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
- Group
- Greens/EFA
- Targets
- Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 12
- Document
- IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
- Printed header
- Recital 12