On Friday 23 June, the Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper) will be working on the final pending questions in relation to the inter-institutional negotiations (‘trilogue’) on the Data Act. The next trilogue - potentially the last - will take place on 27 June.
In particular, the Member States will review their respective positions on how flexible they are willing to be in relation to the question of scope, an area in which there is some distance between their positions and those of the European Parliament. The Parliament would like to restrict the scope to the EU, while the Council of the EU would like to extend it to the place where the recipient of the data is located, including outside the EU.
In addition to the scope, the Council of the EU and the Parliament will also have to agree on the deadline for implementing the text. The Parliament is recommending a period of 18 months, compared with 24 months for the Council of the EU.
Discussions should also cover the concept of ‘trade secret holder’, introduced in addition to the concept of ‘data holder’ to distinguish situations where the organisation to which the trade secret belongs is different to the one controlling the data. In a document submitted to the Member States on 8 June, the Swedish Presidency of the Council called for flexibility on this issue (see EUROPE 13198/9).
Similarly, discussions to prepare the next trilogue should also address the issue of governance and the preferred approach to assigning tasks to the competent authorities.
The Parliament would prefer to put in place a single data coordinator responsible for the application and implementation of data legislation and acting as a single point of contact for all tasks relating to the regulation.
For the Council, “in Member States where several competent authorities are designated, a coordinating competent authority must be designated”. On this point too, the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the EU has asked Member States to show flexibility.
In addition, Member States are due to discuss the possibility of them accepting the Parliament’s request to allow users and data holders to contractually agree on restricting access, use or further sharing of data, particularly in situations that could seriously damage the health and safety of the people involved. (Original version in French by Thomas Mangin)