Digital Omnibus proposal· Recital 8

12 propose alternative wording.

1. 5 ~Alternative Alex Agius Saliba (rapporteur)Rapporteur · IMCO “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

   (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.In addition, data intermediation services should not be provided by very large enterprises. 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.

   Rapporteur

   Alex Agius Saliba

   Group

   Rapporteur

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   IMCO draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 7–9

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

2. 77 ~Alternative David CormandGreens/EFA · JURI “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

   David Cormand

   Group

   Greens/EFA

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 9–11

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

3. 78 ~Alternative Laurence FarrengRenew · JURI “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

   Laurence Farreng

   Group

   Renew

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 11–13

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

4. 79 ~Alternative Emil RadevEPP · JURI “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

   Emil Radev

   Group

   EPP

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   JURI amendments 69–296 to the draft opinion

   Source

   Official text, pages 13–14

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

5. 118 ~Alternative João OliveiraThe Left · ITRE–LIBE “Services should not be eligible to register as data intermediation services where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

   João Oliveira

   Group

   The Left

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, pages 34–36

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

6. 119 ~Alternative João OliveiraThe Left · ITRE–LIBE “Data intermediation services should not be eligible for registration where they are exclusively used by a closed group of companies and where any…”

   (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.Data intermediation services should not be eligible for registration 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.National registers should be maintained alongside Union registers for data intermediation services providers and 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.

   Tabled by

   João Oliveira

   Group

   The Left

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, pages 36–38

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

7. 120 ~Alternative Elena Sancho Murillo +7S&D · ITRE–LIBE “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

   (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.In addition, data intermedediation services should not be provided by very large enterprises. 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.

   Tabled by

   Elena Sancho Murillo, Marina Kaljurand, Brando Benifei, José Cepeda, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Francisco Assis, Alex Agius Saliba

   Group

   S&D

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, pages 38–39

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

8. 121 ~Alternative Michael McNamara +4Renew · ITRE–LIBE “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

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

   Group

   Renew

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, pages 39–41

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

9. 122 ~Alternative Julie Rechagneux +8ECR, PfE · ITRE–LIBE “provided that appropriate technical and organisational safeguards prevent any preferential treatment between the data intermediation service and…”

   (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.

   Tabled by

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

   Group

   ECR, PfE

   Targets

   Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

   Document

   ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

   Source

   Official text, pages 41–43

   Printed header

   Recital 8

   Links

   Link to this amendment
   Cite this amendment

10. 123 ~Alternative Damian BoeselagerGreens/EFA · ITRE–LIBE “however reduced for SMEs for which the regime should be less strict”

    (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.A compulsory regime is needed to make sure trusted data intermediation services providers emerge on the market, therefore legal separation between data intermediation services and other value-added services that a service should be allowed to offer should be kept, as well as, unbundling requirements. Compliance costs should be however 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.

    Tabled by

    Damian Boeselager on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    Group

    Greens/EFA

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

    Document

    ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

    Source

    Official text, pages 43–45

    Printed header

    Recital 8

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment

11. 124 ~Alternative Diana Iovanovici ŞoşoacăNI · ITRE–LIBE “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

    (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.

    Tabled by

    Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

    Group

    NI

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

    Document

    ITRE–LIBE amendments 79–250 to the draft report

    Source

    Official text, pages 45–46

    Printed header

    Recital 8

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment

12. 134 ~Alternative Sophia KircherEPP · IMCO “While the importance of data intermediation services is recognised in the context of many initiatives supporting data sharing and collaboration, the…”

    (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.

    Tabled by

    Sophia Kircher

    Group

    EPP

    Targets

    Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 8

    Document

    IMCO amendments 125–328 to the draft opinion

    Source

    Official text, pages 10–12

    Printed header

    Recital 8

    Links

    Link to this amendment
    Cite this amendment