Digital Omnibus proposal
Recital 33
Compare the available Commission, Council and Parliament texts and amendments affecting this recital.
Recital total: 1 part · 4 Council drafts · 18 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 33
Commission proposal
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
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 33
May Presidency compromise
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not initially envisage the processing of such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data collected through prompts during the deployment of the AI system or AI models. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
June Presidency compromise · 10 June
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
June Presidency compromise · 18 June
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
September Presidency compromise
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33 4 Council drafts
Recital 33
21 May 2026 · May Presidency compromise
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not initially envisage the processing of such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data collected through prompts during the deployment of the AI system or AI models. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
10 June 2026 · June Presidency compromise · 10 June
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
18 June 2026 · June Presidency compromise · 18 June
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
3 September 2026 · September Presidency compromise
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
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 20 IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur)
Remove proposed wording Amendment 120 · Arash Saeidi JURI
Remove proposed wording Amendment 121 · David Cormand JURI
Remove proposed wording Amendment 169 · David Cormand on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group IMCO
Remove proposed wording Amendment 170 · Kateřina Konečná IMCO
Remove proposed wording Amendment 296 · Sibylle Berg, Martin Sonneborn ITRE · LIBE
Remove proposed wording Amendment 297 · Markéta Gregorová on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group ITRE · LIBE
Remove proposed wording Amendment 298 · Marina Kaljurand, Elena Sancho Murillo, Brando Benifei, Birgit Sippel, Alex Agius Saliba, Francisco Assis, Elisabeth Grossmann, Kristian Vigenin, Matjaž Nemec ITRE · LIBE
Remove proposed wording Amendment 299 · Pernando Barrena Arza ITRE · LIBE
Alternative wording Amendment 300 · Aura Salla, Niels Flemming Hansen, Ana Miguel Pedro, Paulo Cunha, Adina Vălean, Henrik Dahl, Andrea Wechsler, Pekka Toveri, Christian Ehler ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including which may include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, such as the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model, and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. The controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing, for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in another Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Alternative wording Amendment 301 · Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The derogation therefore aims to strike a balance between the need to develop and improve artificial intelligence systems and the fundamental obligation to protect data subjects’ rights. It is not a general exception to the protection system established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, but rather a limited and conditional mechanism applicable solely in situations where the presence of data falling under special categories is incidental and unintended. Controllers remain responsible for implementing data protection principles from the design stage and by default (‘privacy by design’ and ‘privacy by default’), as well as for demonstrating compliance with their obligations under data protection legislation. The legal framework thus aims to facilitate innovation in the field of artificial intelligence without detracting from the high level of personal data protection guaranteed in the European Union and without violating data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
Alternative wording Amendment 302 · Irena Joveva, Michael McNamara, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Fabienne Keller ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order to reconcile the technical realities of massive, unstructured data ingestion during the initial model training with the high level of protection required for sensitive data, a narrowly tailored derogation from the prohibition under Article 9(1) should be provided not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI. This derogation must be interpreted strictly and takinglimited intoexclusively accountto entirely inadvertent data collection during the capabilitiesinitial ofdevelopment the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal dataphase, derogatingrather fromthan thecreating prohibitionoperational on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowedprivilege. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoidprevent the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during thetraining entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI modelphase and, once it identifies such data, effectively removeerase them.it Ifprior removal would require disproportionate effort, notably whereto the removalcompletion of specialthat categoriesphase, ofthereby preventing sensitive data memorisedfrom inbecoming structurally embedded within the AI systemsystems or AI modelmodels. would require re-engineeringConsidering the AIlimitations systemof ormachine AIunlearning, where a model has already completed training and subsequent erasure is proven to be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such underlining data from being used to infer outputs, be reverse-engineered, lead to re-identification of data subjects or being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. Additionally, in such cases where erasal of data is technically unfeasible the controller should fully document this technical impossibility and notify competent supervisory authority while deploying robust mitigating measures to secure underlining data. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Moreover, this derogation does not encompass data provided by, or generated through the activity of, end users of online platforms or core platform services and should therefore be strictly excluded from this derogation across all stages of a AI system or AI model’s lifecycle, ensuring that these systems or models cannot exploit user interactions or prompts to bypass protection under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Alternative wording Amendment 303 · Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Aleksandar Nikolic, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Alexandre Varaut, Fabrice Leggeri, Marion Maréchal, Christophe Bay ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retainedextracted or inferred from, in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorisedinextractable from in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. Where special categories of personal data are collected incidentally and residually in the course of web scraping from publicly accessible sources, the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1) applies to the controller within the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-136/17, GC and Others), provided that the controller implements measures to prevent the collection and the dissemination of such data, such as applying filters, excluding sources structurally containing such data, deleting such data immediately upon identification, preventing their extraction from the model, and monitoring the outputs of the system. The mere accessibility of personal data online does not constitute consent, nor does the absence of a technical measure opposing scraping. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Justification
Aligns the terminology with the technical reality of AI models and codifies the 'responsibilities, powers and capabilities' test established by the Court in GC and Others, as applied by the EDPB in its Guidelines 03/2026 on web scraping. This provides legal certainty for the incidental collection of special categories without widening the derogations of Article 9(2).
Alternative wording Amendment 304 · Sebastian Tynkkynen, Diego Solier ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the technical, organisational and state of the art capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in ana manner it considers to be effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, taking into account the technical feasibility, the available resources, the nature of the AI system or model, and state of the art capabilities, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering or significant retraining of the AI system or AI model, the controller should take appropriate measures proportionate to the risks posed that effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Alternative wording Amendment 305 · Andrea Wechsler, Marie-Sophie Lanig, Stefan Köhler, Alexandra Mehnert, Verena Mertens, Sabine Verheyen ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development, training, testing, validation, deployment, operation and monitoring of certain AI systems and AI models may involverequire the collectionprocessing of largepersonal amountsdata. Such processing may constitute a legitimate interest of datathe controller or a third party within the meaning of Article 6(1), includingpoint (f), where appropriate, provided that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject do not override that interest, taking particular account of whether the data subject is a child. Where public authorities process personal data for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in them, Article 6(1), point (e), in conjunction with Union or Member State law referred to in Article 6(3), should remain the appropriate legal basis. Controllers should use non-personal or anonymised data where the intended purpose can reasonably and specialeffectively categoriesbe thereofachieved by using such data. SpecialWhere categoriesthe processing of personal data mayis residually exist in the trainingnecessary, testing or validationpseudonymised data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed.used The derogation should only apply wherewherever the controllerintended haspurpose implementedcan appropriatereasonably and effectively be achieved by using such data. Appropriate technical and organisational measures inshould anbe effectiveimplemented manner to avoidthroughout the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model. wouldSuch requiremeasures re-engineeringshould include data minimisation during the AIselection of sources and the training, testing and validation of the system or AI model, the controlleruse of state-of-the-art privacy-enhancing technologies, and measures to prevent memorisation, regurgitation, data leakage and the unauthorised disclosure of personal data through outputs. Personal data should effectivelyonly protectbe suchincluded in an output where this is necessary for the intended purpose, the recipient is authorised to receive those data fromand beingthe useddisclosure tohas infera outputslegal basis under Article 6 and, beingwhere disclosedapplicable, orArticle otherwise made available to third parties9. ThisParticular derogationprotection should notbe applyafforded where the processing ofto special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuantreferred to in Article 9(21)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Alternative wording Amendment 306 · João Oliveira ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models mayfrequently involveinvolves the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hindersafeguard the development and operationprotection of AIpersonal anddata, takingparticularly intodata accountthat falls within the capabilitiesdefinition of special categories, the controller toshould identifyput in place, by design and removeby default, suitable, robust and demonstrably effective organisational and technical measures to prevent the collection of special categories of personal data, derogatingor fromany other form of processing thereof, in the prohibition on processing special categoriescontext of personaltraining, testing or validation data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowedsets. The derogationcontroller should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takestake the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, oncewithout prejudice to the foregoing, where it identifies such data, effectivelyshould remove themit swiftly and effectively, regardless of the effort or cost required, unless the controller can objectively and manifestly demonstrate that it is materially impossible to remove the data concerned, and not simply disproportionate or burdensome to do so. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorisedcannot inbe the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI modeldeleted, the controller should effectivelytake protectmeasures to prevent such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise being made available to third parties., This derogationand should notdevise applythose wheremeasures in such a way as to enable the processingcompetent ofsupervisory specialauthority categoriesprovided of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) ofby Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to verify compliance therewith.
Alternative wording Amendment 307 · Jana Nagyová, Ondřej Knotek, Tomáš Kubín, Jaroslav Bžoch ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoidmitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, onceis itnotified of or itself identifies such data, effectivelyimplement removetechnically themand economically feasible measures to cease processing. If removalcessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Justification
This amendment ensures interpretive consistency between the recital and the operative provision and prevents supervisory authorities or courts from using the unchanged recital as a basis for a more restrictive interpretation of the derogation than that intended by the amended Article 9(5). It also reflects the extended scope of the controller's duty to act, which now covers situations in which the controller is notified of the presence of special categories of personal data by third parties, and not only cases of self-identification.
Alternative wording Amendment 308 · Zala Černilec Tomašič, Jan Farský, Ondřej Krutílek, Tomáš Zdechovský, Michał Wawrykiewicz, Henrik Dahl, Alexandr Vondra, Veronika Vrecionová, Lukas Mandl ITRE · LIBE
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoidmitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, onceis itnotified of or itself identifies such data, effectivelyimplement removetechnically themand economically feasible measures to cease processing. If removalcessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removalcessation of processing of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineeringreengineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Justification
This amendment aligns Recital (33) with the revised Article 9(5) by replacing obligations to "avoid" and "remove" special categories of personal data with proportionate duties to mitigate risks and cease processing through technically and economically feasible measures. It ensures consistency between the recital and the operative text, prevents overly restrictive interpretation, and clarifies that controllers must act when such data is identified or reported by third parties.
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 33
European Commission proposal → Council Presidency text · ST 9547/26
Changes in context
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not initially envisage the processing of such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and removeerase special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data collected through prompts during the deployment of the AI system or AI models. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively removeerase them. If removalerasure would prove impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the removalerasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
European Commission proposal
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Council Presidency text · ST 9547/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not initially envisage the processing of such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data collected through prompts during the deployment of the AI system or AI models. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
Council Presidency text · ST 9547/26 → Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26
Changes in context
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, includingwhich can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not initiallyintend envisageto the processing ofprocess such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowedlimited forto incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data collecteddirectly throughacquired promptsby duringor theprovided deployment ofto the AI system or AI modelsmodel in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures duringthroughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Council Presidency text · ST 9547/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not initially envisage the processing of such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data collected through prompts during the deployment of the AI system or AI models. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26 → Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26
Changes in context
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Council Presidency text · ST 10426/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26 → Council Presidency text · ST 12535/26
Changes in context
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Council Presidency text · ST 10677/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Council Presidency text · ST 12535/26
The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, which can include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and erase special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be limited to incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures throughout the entire lifecycle, that is to say during the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase them. If erasure would prove technically impossible or require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the erasure of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, or would be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. In line with the accountability principle, the controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or on other Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 296 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 296 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 297 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 297 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 298 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 298 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 299 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 299 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 300 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including which may include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, such as the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model, and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. The controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing, for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in another Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 300 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including which may include personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may incidentally and residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing and while the controller did not intend to process such personal data and has taken the appropriate technical and organisational measures to avoid such processing, such as the filtering out of special categories of personal data at the collection stage. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, including technical capabilities derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed for incidental and residual processing of special categories of data in the context of the development and technical operation of AI systems or AI models. The derogation should not be understood as covering the processing of special categories of personal data directly acquired by or provided to the AI system or AI model in the course of the deployment. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle, such as the development and operation, of an AI system or AI model, and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require manifestly disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model the controller should effectively protect such data from being further processed or processed for other purposes, in particular used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. The controller should document its assessment and have processes in place to monitor and demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing, for example if special categories of personal data relating to a natural person’s voice, image or other personal characteristics are used in a way that goes beyond incidental or residual existence. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in another Union law, such as Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 regarding the processing of special categories of personal data for the purpose of ensuring bias detection and correction. The notion of AI system and AI model should be understood in the same manner as in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 301 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The derogation therefore aims to strike a balance between the need to develop and improve artificial intelligence systems and the fundamental obligation to protect data subjects’ rights. It is not a general exception to the protection system established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, but rather a limited and conditional mechanism applicable solely in situations where the presence of data falling under special categories is incidental and unintended. Controllers remain responsible for implementing data protection principles from the design stage and by default (‘privacy by design’ and ‘privacy by default’), as well as for demonstrating compliance with their obligations under data protection legislation. The legal framework thus aims to facilitate innovation in the field of artificial intelligence without detracting from the high level of personal data protection guaranteed in the European Union and without violating data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 301 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The derogation therefore aims to strike a balance between the need to develop and improve artificial intelligence systems and the fundamental obligation to protect data subjects’ rights. It is not a general exception to the protection system established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, but rather a limited and conditional mechanism applicable solely in situations where the presence of data falling under special categories is incidental and unintended. Controllers remain responsible for implementing data protection principles from the design stage and by default (‘privacy by design’ and ‘privacy by default’), as well as for demonstrating compliance with their obligations under data protection legislation. The legal framework thus aims to facilitate innovation in the field of artificial intelligence without detracting from the high level of personal data protection guaranteed in the European Union and without violating data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 302 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order to reconcile the technical realities of massive, unstructured data ingestion during the initial model training with the high level of protection required for sensitive data, a narrowly tailored derogation from the prohibition under Article 9(1) should be provided not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI. This derogation must be interpreted strictly and takinglimited intoexclusively accountto entirely inadvertent data collection during the capabilitiesinitial ofdevelopment the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal dataphase, derogatingrather fromthan thecreating prohibitionoperational on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowedprivilege. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoidprevent the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during thetraining entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI modelphase and, once it identifies such data, effectively removeerase them.it Ifprior removal would require disproportionate effort, notably whereto the removalcompletion of specialthat categoriesphase, ofthereby preventing sensitive data memorisedfrom inbecoming structurally embedded within the AI systemsystems or AI modelmodels. would require re-engineeringConsidering the AIlimitations systemof ormachine AIunlearning, where a model has already completed training and subsequent erasure is proven to be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such underlining data from being used to infer outputs, be reverse-engineered, lead to re-identification of data subjects or being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. Additionally, in such cases where erasal of data is technically unfeasible the controller should fully document this technical impossibility and notify competent supervisory authority while deploying robust mitigating measures to secure underlining data. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Moreover, this derogation does not encompass data provided by, or generated through the activity of, end users of online platforms or core platform services and should therefore be strictly excluded from this derogation across all stages of a AI system or AI model’s lifecycle, ensuring that these systems or models cannot exploit user interactions or prompts to bypass protection under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 302 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order to reconcile the technical realities of massive, unstructured data ingestion during the initial model training with the high level of protection required for sensitive data, a narrowly tailored derogation from the prohibition under Article 9(1) should be provided not to disproportionately hinder the development of AI. This derogation must be interpreted strictly and limited exclusively to entirely inadvertent data collection during the initial development phase, rather than creating operational privilege. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to prevent the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during training phase and, once it identifies such data, effectively erase it prior to the completion of that phase, thereby preventing sensitive data from becoming structurally embedded within the AI systems or AI models. Considering the limitations of machine unlearning, where a model has already completed training and subsequent erasure is proven to be technically impossible, the controller should effectively protect such underlining data from being used to infer outputs, be reverse-engineered, lead to re-identification of data subjects or being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. Additionally, in such cases where erasal of data is technically unfeasible the controller should fully document this technical impossibility and notify competent supervisory authority while deploying robust mitigating measures to secure underlining data. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Moreover, this derogation does not encompass data provided by, or generated through the activity of, end users of online platforms or core platform services and should therefore be strictly excluded from this derogation across all stages of a AI system or AI model’s lifecycle, ensuring that these systems or models cannot exploit user interactions or prompts to bypass protection under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 303 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retainedextracted or inferred from, in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorisedinextractable from in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. Where special categories of personal data are collected incidentally and residually in the course of web scraping from publicly accessible sources, the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1) applies to the controller within the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-136/17, GC and Others), provided that the controller implements measures to prevent the collection and the dissemination of such data, such as applying filters, excluding sources structurally containing such data, deleting such data immediately upon identification, preventing their extraction from the model, and monitoring the outputs of the system. The mere accessibility of personal data online does not constitute consent, nor does the absence of a technical measure opposing scraping. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 303 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be extracted or inferred from, in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data inextractable from in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. Where special categories of personal data are collected incidentally and residually in the course of web scraping from publicly accessible sources, the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1) applies to the controller within the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-136/17, GC and Others), provided that the controller implements measures to prevent the collection and the dissemination of such data, such as applying filters, excluding sources structurally containing such data, deleting such data immediately upon identification, preventing their extraction from the model, and monitoring the outputs of the system. The mere accessibility of personal data online does not constitute consent, nor does the absence of a technical measure opposing scraping. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 304 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the technical, organisational and state of the art capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in ana manner it considers to be effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, taking into account the technical feasibility, the available resources, the nature of the AI system or model, and state of the art capabilities, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering or significant retraining of the AI system or AI model, the controller should take appropriate measures proportionate to the risks posed that effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 304 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the technical, organisational and state of the art capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in a manner it considers to be effective to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, taking into account the technical feasibility, the available resources, the nature of the AI system or model, and state of the art capabilities, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering or significant retraining of the AI system or AI model, the controller should take appropriate measures proportionate to the risks posed that effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 305 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development, training, testing, validation, deployment, operation and monitoring of certain AI systems and AI models may involverequire the collectionprocessing of largepersonal amountsdata. Such processing may constitute a legitimate interest of datathe controller or a third party within the meaning of Article 6(1), includingpoint (f), where appropriate, provided that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject do not override that interest, taking particular account of whether the data subject is a child. Where public authorities process personal data for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in them, Article 6(1), point (e), in conjunction with Union or Member State law referred to in Article 6(3), should remain the appropriate legal basis. Controllers should use non-personal or anonymised data where the intended purpose can reasonably and specialeffectively categoriesbe thereofachieved by using such data. SpecialWhere categoriesthe processing of personal data mayis residually exist in the trainingnecessary, testing or validationpseudonymised data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed.used The derogation should only apply wherewherever the controllerintended haspurpose implementedcan appropriatereasonably and effectively be achieved by using such data. Appropriate technical and organisational measures inshould anbe effectiveimplemented manner to avoidthroughout the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model. wouldSuch requiremeasures re-engineeringshould include data minimisation during the AIselection of sources and the training, testing and validation of the system or AI model, the controlleruse of state-of-the-art privacy-enhancing technologies, and measures to prevent memorisation, regurgitation, data leakage and the unauthorised disclosure of personal data through outputs. Personal data should effectivelyonly protectbe suchincluded in an output where this is necessary for the intended purpose, the recipient is authorised to receive those data fromand beingthe useddisclosure tohas infera outputslegal basis under Article 6 and, beingwhere disclosedapplicable, orArticle otherwise made available to third parties9. ThisParticular derogationprotection should notbe applyafforded where the processing ofto special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuantreferred to in Article 9(21)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 305 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development, training, testing, validation, deployment, operation and monitoring of AI systems and AI models may require the processing of personal data. Such processing may constitute a legitimate interest of the controller or a third party within the meaning of Article 6(1), point (f), where appropriate, provided that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject do not override that interest, taking particular account of whether the data subject is a child. Where public authorities process personal data for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in them, Article 6(1), point (e), in conjunction with Union or Member State law referred to in Article 6(3), should remain the appropriate legal basis. Controllers should use non-personal or anonymised data where the intended purpose can reasonably and effectively be achieved by using such data. Where the processing of personal data is necessary, pseudonymised data should be used wherever the intended purpose can reasonably and effectively be achieved by using such data. Appropriate technical and organisational measures should be implemented throughout the lifecycle of the AI system or AI model. Such measures should include data minimisation during the selection of sources and the training, testing and validation of the system or model, the use of state-of-the-art privacy-enhancing technologies, and measures to prevent memorisation, regurgitation, data leakage and the unauthorised disclosure of personal data through outputs. Personal data should only be included in an output where this is necessary for the intended purpose, the recipient is authorised to receive those data and the disclosure has a legal basis under Article 6 and, where applicable, Article 9. Particular protection should be afforded to special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1).
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 306 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models mayfrequently involveinvolves the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hindersafeguard the development and operationprotection of AIpersonal anddata, takingparticularly intodata accountthat falls within the capabilitiesdefinition of special categories, the controller toshould identifyput in place, by design and removeby default, suitable, robust and demonstrably effective organisational and technical measures to prevent the collection of special categories of personal data, derogatingor fromany other form of processing thereof, in the prohibition on processing special categoriescontext of personaltraining, testing or validation data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowedsets. The derogationcontroller should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takestake the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, oncewithout prejudice to the foregoing, where it identifies such data, effectivelyshould remove themit swiftly and effectively, regardless of the effort or cost required, unless the controller can objectively and manifestly demonstrate that it is materially impossible to remove the data concerned, and not simply disproportionate or burdensome to do so. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorisedcannot inbe the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI modeldeleted, the controller should effectivelytake protectmeasures to prevent such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise being made available to third parties., This derogationand should notdevise applythose wheremeasures in such a way as to enable the processingcompetent ofsupervisory specialauthority categoriesprovided of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) ofby Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to verify compliance therewith.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 306 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models frequently involves the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order to safeguard the protection of personal data, particularly data that falls within the definition of special categories, the controller should put in place, by design and by default, suitable, robust and demonstrably effective organisational and technical measures to prevent the collection of special categories of personal data, or any other form of processing thereof, in the context of training, testing or validation data sets. The controller should take the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, without prejudice to the foregoing, where it identifies such data, should remove it swiftly and effectively, regardless of the effort or cost required, unless the controller can objectively and manifestly demonstrate that it is materially impossible to remove the data concerned, and not simply disproportionate or burdensome to do so. If the data cannot be deleted, the controller should take measures to prevent such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise being made available to third parties, and should devise those measures in such a way as to enable the competent supervisory authority provided by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to verify compliance therewith.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 307 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoidmitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, onceis itnotified of or itself identifies such data, effectivelyimplement removetechnically themand economically feasible measures to cease processing. If removalcessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 307 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI , derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures to mitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, is notified of or itself identifies such data, implement technically and economically feasible measures to cease processing. If cessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 308 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
Changes in context
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoidmitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, onceis itnotified of or itself identifies such data, effectivelyimplement removetechnically themand economically feasible measures to cease processing. If removalcessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removalcessation of processing of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineeringreengineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 308 · ITRE–LIBE amendments 251–400 to the draft report
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures to mitigate the risk of the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, is notified of or itself identifies such data, implement technically and economically feasible measures to cease processing. If cessation of processing would require disproportionate effort, notably where the cessation of processing of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require reengineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 169 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 169 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 170 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 170 · IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 20 · IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur): removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 20 · IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur): removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 120 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 120 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion: removal
This wording is removed.
Recital 33
Wording reproduced in the amendment → Amendment 121 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion: removal
Changes in context
RemovedAdded
Both texts in full
Wording reproduced in the amendment
(33) The development of certain AI systems and AI models may involve the collection of large amounts of data, including personal data and special categories thereof. Special categories of personal data may residually exist in the training, testing or validation data sets or be retained in the AI system or the AI model, although the special categories of personal data are not necessary for the purpose of the processing. In order not to disproportionately hinder the development and operation of AI and taking into account the capabilities of the controller to identify and remove special categories of personal data, derogating from the prohibition on processing special categories of personal data under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be allowed. The derogation should only apply where the controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner to avoid the processing of those data, takes the appropriate measures during the entire lifecycle of an AI system or AI model and, once it identifies such data, effectively remove them. If removal would require disproportionate effort, notably where the removal of special categories of data memorised in the AI system or AI model would require re-engineering the AI system or AI model, the controller should effectively protect such data from being used to infer outputs, being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties. This derogation should not apply where the processing of special categories of personal data is necessary for the purpose of the processing. In this case, the controller should rely on the derogations pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) – (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 121 · JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion: removal
This wording is removed.