Digital Omnibus proposal· Recital 14

5 amendments would delete the whole recital: members of The Left, S&D and EPP, and the JURI rapporteur and the IMCO rapporteur.

1. 5 −Deletion Brando Benifei (rapporteur)Rapporteur · JURI Deletes the recital

   (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.

   Rapporteur

   Brando Benifei

   Group

   Rapporteur

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   JURI draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 8–9

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

2. 11 −Deletion Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur)Rapporteur · IMCO Deletes the recital

   (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.

   Rapporteur

   Alex Agius Saliba

   Group

   Rapporteur

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   IMCO draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 13–14

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

3. 91 −Deletion Emil RadevEPP · JURI Deletes the recital

   (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.

   Tabled by

   Emil Radev

   Group

   EPP

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 24–25

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

4. 92 ~Alternative David CormandGreens/EFA · JURI “Such alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data…”

   (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.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. 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.Before refusing access, the data holder must offer a viable and secure alternative. 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.This alternative must guarantee legitimate data use while ensuring the non-disclosure of trade secrets. 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.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.

   Tabled by

   David Cormand

   Group

   Greens/EFA

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 25–26

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

5. 145 ~Alternative David CormandGreens/EFA · IMCO “Such alternatives may include confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols subject to regular audits, technical measures for data…”

   (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.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. 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.Before refusing access, the data holder must offer a viable and secure alternative. 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.This alternative must guarantee legitimate data use while ensuring the non-disclosure of trade secrets. 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.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.

   Tabled by

   David Cormand on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

   Group

   Greens/EFA

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 21–22

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

6. 146 ~Alternative Arba KokalariEPP · IMCO “without having to disclose their most invaluable assets”

   (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.

   Tabled by

   Arba Kokalari

   Group

   EPP

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, page 22

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

7. 147 ~Alternative Piotr MüllerECR · IMCO “Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European businesses to sustain their market position and competitive advantage.…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

   Piotr Müller

   Group

   ECR

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

   Document

   IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, page 23

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

8. 150 −Deletion João OliveiraThe Left · ITRE–LIBE Deletes the recital

   (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.

   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 14

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, page 69

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

9. 151 −Deletion Elena Sancho Murillo +6S&D · ITRE–LIBE Deletes the recital

   (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.

   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 14

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, page 70

   Printed header

   Recital 14

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

10. 152 ~Alternative Tomas Tobé +2EPP · ITRE–LIBE “without having to disclose their most invaluable assets”

    (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.

    Tabled by

    Tomas Tobé, Arba Kokalari, Jörgen Warborn

    Group

    EPP

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

    Document

    ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

    Source

    Official text, pages 70–71

    Printed header

    Recital 14

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment

11. 153 ~Alternative Michael McNamara +4Renew · ITRE–LIBE “have the right to be heard before the competent authority issues its approval or rejection of the data holder’s decision, and”

    (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.

    Tabled by

    Michael McNamara, Irena Joveva, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Christophe Grudler

    Group

    Renew

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

    Document

    ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

    Source

    Official text, pages 71–72

    Printed header

    Recital 14

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment

12. 154 ~Alternative Markus BuchheitESN · ITRE–LIBE “and sensitive operational data effectively. Where serious risks exist to confidentiality”

    (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.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.

    Tabled by

    Markus Buchheit

    Group

    ESN

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

    Document

    ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

    Source

    Official text, pages 72–73

    Printed header

    Recital 14

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment

13. 155 ~Alternative Julie Rechagneux +7ECR, PfE · ITRE–LIBE “Protecting trade secrets from those vulnerabilities is essential for European industries and businesses to sustain their market position and…”

    (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.

    Tabled by

    Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Aleksandar Nikolic, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Alexandre Varaut, Fabrice Leggeri, Marion Maréchal, Christophe Bay

    Group

    ECR, PfE

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 14

    Document

    ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

    Source

    Official text, pages 73–74

    Printed header

    Recital 14

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment