been published in the so-called Archiefregeling. This regulation exist, or might exist, including associations among these things (ISO ). (Archiefbesluit ) and the Public Records Regulation (Archiefregeling ) include requirements for the management and. retention. the Archiefwet , the Archiefbesluit and the Archiefregeling does not apply. That is important to notice because these laws state.
|Published (Last):||12 December 2013|
|PDF File Size:||8.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Despite these reasons and objectives, data localisation restrictions often are unjustified or disproportionate, since i effective alternative means to achieve the relevant public policy objective are available e. These archiefrgeeling inputs have not only provided new evidence on the obstacles to data flows in the EU, but have allowed the scope of the options and of the proposed initiative to be refined in order to better target the problem and its different drivers.
However, relying completely on market participant to introduce such conditions could constitute a lack of guidance and therefore cause disproportionately dominant market positions for large tech companies. It will be synergetic with the planned initiatives on the EU ICT security certification framework, online platforms and digital innovation in health and care.
Non-legislative initiative — guidelines, strengthening enforcement of existing EU rules and acrhiefregeling transparency. Member States’ legislative and administrative restrictions.
An EU level initiative would address the problem of legal uncertainty by establishing a clear free movement of data principle covering the whole Union and fostering common approaches to and awareness of the legal possibilities to store and process data at the location and using the service or IT system chosen by an enterprise or a public sector organisation.
Data localisation restrictions come in many forms, ranging from ‘hard law’ to ‘soft law’ measures and administrative practices. Therefore, these problem drivers can best be solved by introducing clear principles in a Regulation and subsequently raising awareness about them. These results are corroborated by the results of the public consultationwhich show how stakeholders are aware of these potential savings that could accrue in case of clear limits to data restrictions The following figures extracted from the study’s analysis show that the ‘simple’ case users — representing typically smaller business users such as start-ups or SMEs — relatively face the highest portability costs: They also view interoperability as an essential prerequisite for a competitive well-functioning digital economy.
Members of the cooperation group of single points of contacts would be expected to have regular but non-frequent meetings with the data protection authorities and cyber security authorities of Member States, but because this will constitute a maximum number of archiefreeling meetings annually, no extra burden in terms of HR or finance is to be expected.
In this respect, the Commission should be cautious about instituting such a archiefrebeling. The impacts would be similar to those under the baseline option. The very nature of data localisation restrictions implies that the offer of archiefregeljng services is reduced, at least in the short term, leading, potentially, to higher prices of such services in the markets concerned. Following analysis, the consequences of these obstacles have been divided into four main categories.
Policy action on improving data availability to Member State authorities for regulatory control purposes would increase cross-border data mobility because of raised levels of trust, both by market participants and by Member States authorities.
Therefore, the negative indirect effect from the status quo is linked to the assumption that companies especially SMEs that are affected by data localisation restrictions may choose not to store data in the cloud.
It appears archiefrwgeling the question if and to which extend the archival law applies for all research data cannot be archiefrebeling unambiguously. It appears that this question cannot be answered unambiguously. Indeed, when it comes to potential actions to make more data available for re-use across businesses, most stakeholders call for prudence.
EUR-Lex – SC – EN – EUR-Lex
This option could have a marginally positive impact on costs associated with the analysis of the regulatory environmentat least for SMEs and could also have a marginally positive impact on the choice and cost of data services for the organisations using them.
On the other hand, the benefits of common approaches and guidelines, as well as increased cooperation on data availability in electronic 20009 are going to be increasingly large as the volume of cross-border data availability requests increases.
This could lead to indirect administrative burdens in the form of an increased number of cases referred to Member States’ competition authorities. Powered by Atlassian Confluence 6.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
EU intervention through this initiative would therefore answer directly to the Commission’s overall policy objective of creating jobs and growth for the EU. Furthermore, cloud services are used in almost every sector.
This would archlefregeling to an unequal regulatory landscape and an unequal level playing field for businesses in the EU. It is true that many factors play a role in the decision on where arfhiefregeling situate a data centre such as proximity to clients and access to a pool of human resources who have the skills to operate the data centre. Proliferation of data localisation restrictions could also hamper the development of innovative approaches energy optimisation or efficiency in data centres, e.
Article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TFEU confers on the EU the power to adopt measures, including regulations, which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The different group of stakeholders also provide more in-depth views on why they would prefer a legislative approach.
However, many stakeholders have underlined the need to avoid interfering too much with contractual freedom. This lack of trust has two important pillars. At the same time a minimal level of common requirements would reduce uncertainty and lack of trust stemming from different levels of data security among the Member States which is currently contributing to alter the market structure and the client choiceas has been proven by stakeholders consulted and by the support studies.
Instead, as argued further below in this section, a majority of different categories of stakeholders has called for a legislative approach to confront the problem.