Documents

Key

• Each text against the law in force:
• Each text against the text before it:
• 15articles that differ from the law in force
• 15articles that differ from the text before (the law in force, for the proposal)
• Repealevery article deleted
• Annex IIonly that annex changes
• ●comparison available
• ◐incomplete comparison
• *comparison with editorial notes
• no comparison for that text

Why 13 comparisons are incomplete

• ◐
  ST 9547/26, 21 May 2026 · all ten acts. ST 9547/26 reproduces only some of the proposal’s changes, so this comparison applies only those it shows or visibly drops. It says nothing about the others.

  One more note

  • Repeal timing: This act is repealed on a date aligned with the entry into application of the amendments the amending regulation makes.
• ◐
  JURI draft opinion, 5 June 2026 · Data Act.

  Eight notes

  • Article 2 – point 38a: Amendment 20 changes only the Commission's amending instruction for Data Act Article 2 and supplies no wording for point (38a), so nothing is added there.
  • Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point c: Amendment 33 replaces Data Act Article 19(1)(c) itself, so it is applied to that point; the Commission's change to the introductory wording stays a separate change.
  • Amendment 23 replaces Data Act Article 2(49) with a definition of ‘dynamic data’ but does not show how the Commission's points (50) to (52) are removed or renumbered, so applying it alone could duplicate definitions and it is not applied.
  • Amendment 24 names Data Act Article 2(50) but copies the wording of a different Commission definition, so the tracker cannot show where its text would sit.
  • Amendment 24 names one definition but copies the wording of a different Commission definition, so the tracker cannot show where its text would sit.
  • Amendment 25 names Data Act Article 2(51) but copies the wording of a different Commission definition, so the tracker cannot show where its text would sit.
  • Amendment 25 names one definition but copies the wording of a different Commission definition, so the tracker cannot show where its text would sit.
  • Amendment 60 names Data Act Article 32r(3), but both of its columns reproduce paragraph 4, so the tracker cannot place it and does not guess which paragraph is meant.
• ◐
  IMCO draft opinion, 8 June 2026 · GDPR.

  Four notes

  • Article 4: Amendment 97 changes only the Commission's amending instruction for GDPR Article 4, not the wording it would insert, so it adds no text to the article.
  • Article 9 – paragraph 2: Amendment 99 changes only the Commission's amending instruction for GDPR Article 9(2), not the wording it would insert, so it adds no text to the article.
  • Article 12 – paragraph 5 – additional subparagraph: Earlier in this text the Commission's wording of GDPR Article 12(5) is removed, so the unnumbered wording that Amendment 107 supplies is shown as an extra subparagraph of Article 12(5).
  • Amendment 116 adds a sentence to GDPR Article 88a(4) but does not say where it goes in relation to points (a) to (c), so it is not applied.
• ◐ST 13886/26, 2 October 2026 · GDPR. Page 126 prints “(9a)” without an instruction or target, so no change can be assigned to that marker.
• *
  Commission proposal · Data Act.

  Four notes

  • Article 2(41): The official text leaves out the opening quotation mark of the defined term; the tracker adds it back and changes no words.
  • Article 45(6): The proposal prints this paragraph in full but leaves out its closing quotation mark; the tracker adds no words and does not add the mark.
  • Article 49(4): The proposal calls this paragraph 5, but the Data Act has only four paragraphs, so the tracker applies the wording to paragraph 4, as a later Council draft does too. The source record preserves the proposal’s own number.
  • Article 49(2a): The proposal closes a quotation after point (b) and again after point (g). As an editorial reading, the tracker treats points (a) to (g) as one paragraph and leaves the printed punctuation untouched.
• *ST 10426/26, 10 June 2026 · GDPR. Article 13(5): ST 10426/26 numbers two different new paragraphs of GDPR Article 13 as 5 (pages 106–107), so both are shown under that number, in the document's order.
• *ST 13886/26, 2 October 2026 · Data Act. Article 46(1), first sentence: The draft replaces the first sentence with two sentences, one of which repeats the unchanged second sentence. Applying the instruction literally therefore leaves that sentence twice.
• *ST 13886/26, 2 October 2026 · Data Governance Act. Chapters III-VII: The after-view shows the final stage of a partial repeal: Chapters III–VII are repealed when the amending regulation enters into force; Chapters I–II are repealed 18 months after its publication in the Official Journal. Chapters VIII–IX and Articles 32–38 remain in this source reconstruction.
• *ST 14756/26, 22 October 2026 · Data Act. Article 46(1), first sentence: The draft replaces the first sentence with two sentences, one of which repeats the unchanged second sentence. Applying the instruction literally therefore leaves that sentence twice.
• *ST 14756/26, 22 October 2026 · Data Governance Act. Chapters III-VII: The after-view shows the final stage of a partial repeal: Chapters III–VII are repealed when the amending regulation enters into force; Chapters I–II are repealed 24 months after its publication in the Official Journal. Chapters VIII–IX and Articles 32–38 remain in this source reconstruction.