Research

Digital Omnibus tracker

Digital Omnibus proposal

Recital 8

Compare the available Commission, Council and Parliament texts and amendments affecting this recital.

Recital total: 1 part · 3 Council drafts · 12 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.

Commission source wording and instructions

Recital 8

Commission proposal

While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable 27 Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act) (OJ L 152, 3.6.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/868/oj). 28 Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 56, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj). 29 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj). sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.

Institutional text

Council Presidency texts

Successive Presidency compromise texts. Their inclusion does not imply agreement or adoption.

Recital 8

June Presidency compromise · 10 June

While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed 7 Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act) (OJ L 152, 3.6.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/868/oj). 8 Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 56, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj). 9 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj). group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a data intermediation service provider should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 .

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.

Alternative wording Amendment 5 IMCO draft opinion · Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur)
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. MoreIn importantlyaddition, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services andshould other value-added services that a service shouldnot be allowedprovided toby offer,very replacinglarge it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguardsenterprises. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 77 · David Cormand JURI
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 78 · Laurence Farreng JURI
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 79 · Emil Radev JURI
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 118 · João Oliveira ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 119 · João Oliveira ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of dataData intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible tofor register as data intermediation servicesregistration where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. MoreNational importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regimeregisters should be mademaintained less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and aalongside Union public registerregisters for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the registers and the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, that perform activities in particular given the emergingpublic nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entitiesinterest. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 120 · Elena Sancho Murillo, Marina Kaljurand, Brando Benifei, José Cepeda, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Francisco Assis, Alex Agius Saliba ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. MoreIn importantlyaddition, makingdata thisintermedediation emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regimeservices should not be made less strictprovided by abolishingvery thelarge requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguardsenterprises. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 121 · Michael McNamara, Irena Joveva, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Christophe Grudler ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, inIn order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 122 · Julie Rechagneux, Mélanie Disdier, Aleksandar Nikolic, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Alexandre Varaut, Fabrice Leggeri, Marion Maréchal, António Tânger Corrêa, Christophe Bay ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards, provided that appropriate technical and organisational safeguards prevent any preferential treatment between the data intermediation service and other value-added services offered by the same provider. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 123 · Damian Boeselager on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to aA compulsory regime hasis created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral playersneeded to distinguishmake themselvessure fromtrusted otherdata players,intermediation appearsservices sufficient.providers Also,emerge in order to enable sustainable business models,on the regimemarket, should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for atherefore legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer should be kept, replacingas itwell withas, aunbundling functionalrequirements. separationCompliance whilecosts keepingshould certainbe safeguardshowever reduced for SMEs for which the regime should be less strict. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 124 · Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă ITRE · LIBE
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise and accurate. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’ and data altruism. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.
Alternative wording Amendment 134 · Sophia Kircher IMCO
(8) While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the rules of Regulation (EU) 2022/868 on data intermediation service providers should be clarified. In particular, the definition of such providers should be made more precise. It should eliminate elements that served merely as illustrative examples, rather than exceptions. Moreover, it should address loopholes resulting from ambiguous formulations, notably as regards the notion of ‘closed group’. Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any extension of that group of companies can only be decided by that group and not the service provider. More importantly, making this emerging market subject to a compulsory regime has created unnecessary compliance costs. At this stage of market development, a voluntary regime, allowing neutral players to distinguish themselves from other players, appears sufficient. Also, in order to enable sustainable business models, the regime should be made less strict by abolishing the requirement for a legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer, replacing it with a functional separation while keeping certain safeguards. The administrative monitoring regime should be simplified. Instead of national and a Union public register for data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations, there should only be Union public registers, namely one for data intermediation service providers and another for data altruism organisations. Competent authorities overseeing the award of the label and the compliance of the entities with the requirements for obtaining it should be independent in this task. This should be understood to mean that they are legally and functionally independent from a data intermediation service or data altruism organisation, including at the level of their top-management. It should be possible for government organisations to financially support data intermediation services or data altruism organisations, in particular given the emerging nature of these entities, provided that they are legally separate entities. In order to ensure that recognised entities are easily identifiable throughout the Union, the Commission established Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1622 on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union. on the design of common logos to identify data intermediation services providers and data altruism organisations recognised in the Union.