Digital Omnibus proposal
Recital 14
Compare the available Commission, Council and Parliament texts and amendments affecting this recital.
Recital total: 1 part · 3 Council drafts · 13 Parliament amendments
Removed wording is struck through; added or replacement wording is highlighted.
Institutional text
European Commission proposal
The wording proposed by the Commission at the start of this legislative file.
No standalone Commission wording is mapped to this tracked part. A newly proposed provision may have no earlier text of its own.
Commission source wording and instructions
Recital 14
Commission proposal
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Institutional text
Council Presidency texts
Successive Presidency compromise texts. Their inclusion does not imply agreement or adoption.
No Council wording is mapped to this tracked part.
Recital 14
June Presidency compromise · 10 June
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
June Presidency compromise · 18 June
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
September Presidency compromise
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14 3 Council drafts
Recital 14
10 June 2026 · June Presidency compromise · 10 June
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
18 June 2026 · June Presidency compromise · 18 June
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
3 September 2026 · September Presidency compromise
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Competing proposals
European Parliament amendments
These are alternative tabled amendments. An amendment affecting several tracked parts appears once here, with each target identified.
More filters
Political group at the amendment date where available; otherwise the current Parliament affiliation.
Remove proposed wording Amendment 5 JURI draft opinion · Brando Benifei (rapporteur)
Remove proposed wording Amendment 11 IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur)
Remove proposed wording Amendment 91 · Emil Radev JURI
Alternative wording Amendment 92 · David Cormand JURI
(14) ProtectingTrade secret should not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate access to data. Any refusal of access to data protected by a trade secretssecret frommust thoseconstitute vulnerabilitiesa is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectivesmeasure of Regulationlast (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Unionresort. SafeguardsBefore againstrefusing misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in placeaccess, including the data holder’sholder obligationmust to demonstrate inoffer a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high riskviable and tosecure notify competent authoritiesalternative. This demonstrationalternative shouldmust beguarantee providedlegitimate indata writinguse withoutwhile undue delay toensuring the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential naturenon-disclosure of the trade secrets concerned. UsersSuch alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data aggregation or anonymization, technical architectures and thirdstandards parties,that aspreserve the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodiesconfidentiality.
Alternative wording Amendment 145 · David Cormand on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group IMCO
(14) ProtectingTrade secret should not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate access to data. Any refusal of access to data protected by a trade secretssecret frommust thoseconstitute vulnerabilitiesa is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectivesmeasure of Regulationlast (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Unionresort. SafeguardsBefore againstrefusing misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in placeaccess, including the data holder’sholder obligationmust to demonstrate inoffer a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high riskviable and tosecure notify competent authoritiesalternative. This demonstrationalternative shouldmust beguarantee providedlegitimate indata writinguse withoutwhile undue delay toensuring the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential naturenon-disclosure of the trade secrets concerned. UsersSuch alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data aggregation or anonymization, technical architectures and thirdstandards parties,that aspreserve the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodiesconfidentiality.
Alternative wording Amendment 146 · Arba Kokalari IMCO
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage without having to disclose their most invaluable assets. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Alternative wording Amendment 147 · Piotr Müller IMCO
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industriesbusinesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Remove proposed wording Amendment 150 · João Oliveira ITRE · LIBE
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.
Remove proposed wording Amendment 151 · Elena Sancho Murillo, Marina Kaljurand, Brando Benifei, José Cepeda, Lina Gálvez, Francisco Assis, Alex Agius Saliba ITRE · LIBE
Alternative wording Amendment 152 · Tomas Tobé, Arba Kokalari, Jörgen Warborn ITRE · LIBE
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage without having to disclose their most invaluable assets. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Alternative wording Amendment 153 · Michael McNamara, Irena Joveva, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Christophe Grudler ITRE · LIBE
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, have the right to be heard before the competent authority issues its approval or rejection of the data holder’s decision, and may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Alternative wording Amendment 154 · Markus Buchheit ITRE · LIBE
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While dataData holders maymust exercisebe discretionable into protecting theirprotect trade secrets and sensitive operational data effectively. Where serious risks exist to confidentiality, refusalsintegrity, economic substance or technological sovereignty, refusal to share data shouldmust be limitedpermitted. to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve theThe objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation andshall anot thrivingbe digitalinterpreted economyas inrequiring theundertakings Unionto surrender strategically sensitive information. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Alternative wording Amendment 155 · Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Aleksandar Nikolic, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Alexandre Varaut, Fabrice Leggeri, Marion Maréchal, Christophe Bay ITRE · LIBE
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries and businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
No amendments match these filters.
Selected texts
Compare wording
Choose a tracked part and a named pair of texts. Comparisons are offered only where both sides cover the same legal unit.
Select a specific tracked part above to compare wording.
No same-scope comparison is available for this tracked part. Its source wording remains available in the article text sections.
Recital 14
European Commission proposal → Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26
Changes in context
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industriesbusinesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
European Commission proposal
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26 → Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26
Changes in context
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26 → Council Presidency text · ST 12535/26
Changes in context
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Council Presidency text · ST 12535/26
Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 150 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 150 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 151 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 151 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 152 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
Changes in context
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage without having to disclose their most invaluable assets. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 152 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage without having to disclose their most invaluable assets. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be justified in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 153 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
Changes in context
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, have the right to be heard before the competent authority issues its approval or rejection of the data holder’s decision, and may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 153 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, have the right to be heard before the competent authority issues its approval or rejection of the data holder’s decision, and may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 154 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
Changes in context
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While dataData holders maymust exercisebe discretionable into protecting theirprotect trade secrets and sensitive operational data effectively. Where serious risks exist to confidentiality, refusalsintegrity, economic substance or technological sovereignty, refusal to share data shouldmust be limitedpermitted. to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve theThe objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation andshall anot thrivingbe digitalinterpreted economyas inrequiring theundertakings Unionto surrender strategically sensitive information. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 154 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. Data holders must be able to protect trade secrets and sensitive operational data effectively. Where serious risks exist to confidentiality, integrity, economic substance or technological sovereignty, refusal to share data must be permitted. The objectives of data-driven innovation shall not be interpreted as requiring undertakings to surrender strategically sensitive information. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 155 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
Changes in context
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries and businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 155 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries and businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 145 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
Changes in context
(14) ProtectingTrade secret should not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate access to data. Any refusal of access to data protected by a trade secretssecret frommust thoseconstitute vulnerabilitiesa is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectivesmeasure of Regulationlast (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Unionresort. SafeguardsBefore againstrefusing misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in placeaccess, including the data holder’sholder obligationmust to demonstrate inoffer a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high riskviable and tosecure notify competent authoritiesalternative. This demonstrationalternative shouldmust beguarantee providedlegitimate indata writinguse withoutwhile undue delay toensuring the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential naturenon-disclosure of the trade secrets concerned. UsersSuch alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data aggregation or anonymization, technical architectures and thirdstandards parties,that aspreserve the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodiesconfidentiality.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 145 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
(14) Trade secret should not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate access to data. Any refusal of access to data protected by a trade secret must constitute a measure of last resort. Before refusing access, the data holder must offer a viable and secure alternative. This alternative must guarantee legitimate data use while ensuring the non-disclosure of trade secrets. Such alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data aggregation or anonymization, technical architectures and standards that preserve confidentiality.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 146 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
Changes in context
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage without having to disclose their most invaluable assets. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 146 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage without having to disclose their most invaluable assets. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be justified in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 147 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
Changes in context
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industriesbusinesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 147 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 11 · IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur): removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 11 · IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur): removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 91 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 91 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 92 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion
Changes in context
(14) ProtectingTrade secret should not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate access to data. Any refusal of access to data protected by a trade secretssecret frommust thoseconstitute vulnerabilitiesa is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectivesmeasure of Regulationlast (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Unionresort. SafeguardsBefore againstrefusing misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in placeaccess, including the data holder’sholder obligationmust to demonstrate inoffer a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high riskviable and tosecure notify competent authoritiesalternative. This demonstrationalternative shouldmust beguarantee providedlegitimate indata writinguse withoutwhile undue delay toensuring the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential naturenon-disclosure of the trade secrets concerned. UsersSuch alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data aggregation or anonymization, technical architectures and thirdstandards parties,that aspreserve the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodiesconfidentiality.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 92 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion
(14) Trade secret should not be used as a pretext to deny legitimate access to data. Any refusal of access to data protected by a trade secret must constitute a measure of last resort. Before refusing access, the data holder must offer a viable and secure alternative. This alternative must guarantee legitimate data use while ensuring the non-disclosure of trade secrets. Such alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data aggregation or anonymization, technical architectures and standards that preserve confidentiality.
Recital 14
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 5 · JURI draft opinion · Brando Benifei (rapporteur): removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(14) Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries to sustain their market position and competitive advantage. While data holders may exercise discretion in protecting their trade secrets, refusals to share data should be limited to justified, exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of fostering data-driven innovation and a thriving digital economy in the Union. Safeguards against misuse of the refusal mechanism should remain in place, including the data holder’s obligation to demonstrate in a duly substantiated manner that disclosure poses a high risk and to notify competent authorities. This demonstration should be provided in writing without undue delay to the user or third party and proportionate to the case at hand. All parties involved should treat the decision and supporting demonstration as confidential in order to uphold the confidential nature of the trade secrets concerned. Users and third parties, as the case may be, may challenge the data holder’s decision with the competent authority, in court, or through dispute settlement bodies.
Amendment 5 · JURI draft opinion · Brando Benifei (rapporteur): removal
This wording is removed.