Statement 4/2024 on the recent legislative developments on the Draft Regulation laying down additional procedural rules for the enforcement of the GDPR

1

Statement 4/2024 on the recent legislative developments
on the Draft Regulation laying down additional procedural
rules for the enforcement of the GDPR
Adopted on 7 October 2024

The European Data Protection Board has adopted the following statement:

1. BACKGROUN D AND PURPOSE OF THE STATEMENT
Following its Statement on enforcement cooperation1, the European Data Protection Board ( EDPB )
sent to the European Commission a list of procedural aspects that could benefit from further
harmonisation at EU level, in order to maximise the full effectiveness of the GDPR’s cooperation and
consistency mechanism s (the ‘EDPB wish list’)2. The Commission then published a proposal for a
Regulation laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of the GDPR (the
‘Proposal’) , on which the EDPB and the EDPS made recommendations through a Joint Opinion3 (the
‘Joint Opinion’ or the ‘JO’) .
The EDPB welcomes the Proposal’s objective of better protection of fundamental rights through
faster, smoother and more efficient enforcement procedures . At the same time, the EDPB stresses
that the introduction of any new procedural steps and additional tasks of supervisory authorities (SAs)

1 EDPB Statement on enforcement cooperation, 28 April 2022.
2 EDPB Letter to the EU Commission on procedural aspects that could be harmonised at EU level , 10 October
2022.
3 EDPB -EDPS Joint Opinion 01/2023 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 , 19
September 2023.
2
will create the need for additional resources. For this reason, the EDPB called – and calls again – upon
the EU legislators, as well as the European Commission and the Member States , to take the necessary
actions to ensure that the EDPB and its members have the necessary resources to implement
successfully the GDPR and the procedural rules .
With the present Statement, t he EDPB generally welcomes the European Parliament’s position4 and
the Council’s General approach5 on the Proposal (respectively, the ‘EP Position’ and the ‘Council
Position’)6. Several of the Joint Opinion’s recommendations have been taken into account, but the
EDPB recommends further addressing some elements in order for the new r egulation to achieve its
objectives, i.e. to streamline cooperation and improve the enforcement of the GDPR. In addition, the
EDPB highlights that having a high number of refer ences to national law in the new regulation would
not be in the spirit of increased harmonisation and should therefore be avoided .
2. RECOMM ENDATIONS
1. COMPLAINTS, PRELIMINARY VETTING AND AMICABLE SETTLEM ENTS
On complaint s and rights of complainant s – The EDPB notes that the Council Position (Recital 3a) aims
at clarifying the concept of ‘ complaint ’ and, in line with the CJEU case law7, takes an adequate
approach on the rights of the complainant . The EDPB supports this approach, considering that
regardless of the possible divergences between their national procedural environments , the ultimate
goal of the supervisory authorities is the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in Article 8 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the E uropean Union and specified in the GDPR . The EDPB highlights
that, as a matter of principle, complainants should enjoy proc edural rights to the exten t that their
subjective rights are at stake .
On preliminary vetting and amicable settlement of complaints – The EDPB welcomes the
amendments introduced by both the EP and the Council to Article 3(2) of the Proposal , which the
Board construe s as providing a legal basis for SAs to carry out preliminary vetting , as suggested in the
Joint Opinion8. In particular, the EDPB welcomes that the EP Position clarifies that the determination
of admissibility of a complaint by the complaint -receiving SA shall be binding on the lead supervisory
authority (LSA) (Article 3(2) (c)(i) EP Position ).
The EDPB positively notes th at both the EP and the Council have supplemented Article 5 of the
Proposal with additional elements in order to address the implement ation of amicable settlements ,

4 European Parliament, Amendments to the proposal for a regulation laying down additional procedural rules
relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 ., P9_TA(2024)0187, 10 April 2024
5 Council, General approach , 11214/24, adopted on 13 June 2024 and published on 18 June 2024.
6 This is in line w ith the commitment made in its 2024 -2027 Strategy to strengthen further its efforts to ensure
effective enforcement by, and cooperation between, the members of the EDPB; and to support the efforts for
the adoption of the Proposal, including by continuing t o provide feedback during the legislative process. EDPB
Strategy 2024 -2027, Pillar 2 (in particular, Key action 3).
7 C-26/22 and 64/22, Schufa, 7 December 2023, para. 58.
8 Joint Opinion, para. 20. 3
as per the EDPS and EDPB recommendation s in the JO9. However, the EDPB recommends adopting a
provision in the new regulation making sure that amicable settlement s can be achieved in every
country (and not to make it dependent on national law). Since the Proposal aims at enhancing
cooperation and harmonising procedural rules, the EDPB also recommends harmonising the definition
and procedure of amicable settlements, providing therefore a direct legal basis for amica ble
settlements at EU level .
In addition, the EDPB welcomes that the EP Report ( Article 5(1) ) clarifies that amicable settlements
should be possible at any stage of the proceedings , and recommends that the new regulation provides
supervisory authorities with an active role10 in the conclusion of such settlements.
The EDPB further highlights that if reaching amicable settlements is subject to the explicit agreement
of both the data subject and the controller in each case as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of the EP
Position , this will require to provide the SAs with additional resources to obtain such agreement. In
this respect, t he EDPB also recalls that it is not uncommon for complainants to cease communication
with authorities after a certain period of t ime, particularly when their complaints have been pending
for an extended period11. As a result, the requirement to seek active/explicit agreement by the
complainant could also hinder the prompt resolution of issues that could be solved efficiently without
such agreement . Therefore, the EDPB supports the Council’s approach , which clarifies that amicable
settlements may not be possible when the complainant objects to the proposed settlement (recital
9b and Article 5(3)b Council Position). Nevertheless, the ED PB highlights that the complainant should
be warned in advance of the consequences of their silence and be given a suitable deadline to respond .
In any event , the EDPB recalls that the LSA is requ ired to submit a draft decision to the concerned
supervisory authorities ( CSAs ) in all cases12 and welcomes that both the EP (Article 5(1b) EP Position)
and the Council (Article 5(5) Council Position) confirm that amicable settlement s achieved in the OSS
context should be finalised by a draft decision by the competent SA . The EDPB recalls that this decision
is a sui generis draft decision , finding that the complaint has been settled by the LSA with the mutual
satisfaction of the parties involved 13. In this regard, the EDPB welcomes the Council’s clarificat ion that
the sui generis draft decision could be simplified (recital 9c Council Position ). However , the EDPB
expresses concerns as to the exclusion by the Council (Article 18(1 )(c) Council Position ) – of the

9 Joint Opinion, para. 20.
10 See EDPB Guidelines on ami cable settlements, para 7
11 As a result, the requirement to seek active/explicit agreement by the complainant could also hinder the
prompt resolution of issues that could be solved efficiently without such agreement. In addition, if an explicit
agreement b y the complainant is not required, many complainants may assume that silence or a lack of response
implies tacit agreement with the proposed settlement and decide not to actively confirm their agreement if they
are satisfied or indifferent to the outcome. Conversely, if they disagree, they would have a clear incentive to
respond and express their dissent. Thus, the absence of a response could be interpreted as an implicit form of
agreement, allowing authorities to proceed with resolving the complaint effici ently .
12 See EDPB Guidelines on amicable settlements, para 37 and EDPB Guidelines on the application of Article 60
GDPR, paras 97 -99.
13 See EDPB Guidelines on amicable settlements, paras 38 and 55. 4
possibility for CSAs to raise relevant and reasoned objections to a sui generis draft decisions issued in
respect of amicable settlements , and urges the co -legislators to remove this restriction14.
Lastly , the EDPB also welcomes the possibility for the comp laint -receiving SA to resolve the case at an
early stage where the complainant’s request has been dealt with in a satisfactory manner15, as
provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of the Council Position . In these cases, there should not be a need for
the complaint to be transmitted to the LSA: the EDPB suggests adapting Article 5(1)(a) of the Council
Position in this regard .
2. ACCESS TO THE ADMINI STRATIVE FILE / JOINT CAS E FILE
In the Joint Opinion , the EDPS and EDPB welcome that the Proposal clarifies and harmonises the right
of access to the administrative file16. The EDPB r eiterates the importance of making sure that the
complainant is also given access to the non -confidential version of the relevant documents on which
a proposed rej ection of the complaint is based, as well as a non -confidential version of the preliminary
findings and of the documents in the administrative file . This being said, the EDPB underlines that
confidentiality requirements should not prevent SAs from cooperat ing and exchanging information.
They may flag specific pieces of information as (highly) confidential, but this aims to enable them to
respect the confidentiality towards external parties17. Therefore, the EDPB welcomes the clarification
made by the Council in Article 21(1) that confidentiality requirements entail that SAs shall not make
accessible to the parties under investigation or to the complainant information which is confidential
or contains trade secrets. In the Commission’s Proposal, this provision may indeed be understood to
apply also to exchanges between SAs.
The EDPB considers that the concept of ‘joint case file ’, newly introduced by the EP (Article 2(2f) EP
Position ), is worth particular attention18 and concurs with the objective of ensuring high level of
transparency . While the EDPB welcomes the intention of the EP to facilitate and speed up the
information sharing between supervisory authorities and to further harmonise the right of access to
the a dministrative file enjoyed by the parties under investigation and complainant s, it also has
concerns on the legal and technical implications of this proposal . The EDPB stresses that the
implementation of such joint case file would require complex changes t o the document management
and communication systems used at European19 and national levels . A careful assessment of the

14 See EDPB Guidelines on amicable settlements, paras 39 an d 40 explaining that it is still possible to raise
relevant and reasoned objections in amicable settlement cases, but if the consensus objective has been taken
into due account by the LSA in handling the procedure, such objections should be exceptional.
15 See EDPB Guidelines on amicable settlements, para 28 and JO, para 37 explaining that in such cases, the
amicable settlement may make it unnecessary to initiate an Article 60 GDPR procedure , insofar as the settlement
achieved is to the full satisfaction of the parties involved
16 See Joint opinion, para 77.
17 See EDPB Guidelines on the application of Article 60 GDPR , para 52 and JO, para 68.
18 Under the EP Position , a joint case file shall be managed by the LSA and include all relevant information
regarding a case. The lead SA should provide the SAs with instant remote access, while the competent SAs should
give remote access the parties to the procedure, with the possibility for this access to be restricted at the request
of one of the parties and under cert ain conditions (Article 2b(4) EP Position).
19 Currently, the system used with respect to GDPR Cooperation is the IMI system. 5
appropriate technical solutions would be required20. Should the proposal of a joint case file
nevertheless be adopted in the final version of the Regulation, the EDPB recommends i n particular
that:
 the new regulation should clarify under which modalities of access the joint case file can be
accessed by the parties under investigation and the complainant, and in particular, whether
such access would be continuous ( i.e. possible at any time) or only granted upon request. The
EDPB is concerned that providing the parties with continuous access to the joi nt case file
would lead to an increased number of legal challenges against SAs decisions on confidentiality
aspects, which might create an extra burden for the SAs . The EDPB is also concerned that such
access would increase the likelihood of data breaches and/or information leaks , ultimately
undermining trust in SAs and the joint case file . In this regard, further clarifications on how
the protection of confidential information and trade secrets would be ensured are necessary ;
 the joint case file should be implemented at EU level, and directly managed by the SAs. The
EDPB and the SAs should be given sufficient time, as well as appropriate technical and financial
resources for the implementation of this system. The EDPB hence recommends to the
legislators to abstain from setting a specific implementation date for the joint case file , and
instead that the progress of its implementation be communicated through the evaluation
process of the new regulation. Should a specific implementation date be set, the EDPB would
appreciate to be consulted on this matter during the trilogue negotiations to ensure that the
deadline is realistic .
3. COOPERATION PROCEDUR E AND CONSENSUS FIND ING
The EDPB welcomes that both the EP and the Council implement some of the JO’s recommenda tions
concerning the cooperation between SAs , such as enabling any CSA (and not only the LSA) to trigger
the urgency procedure in case of a disagreement on the summary of key issues in complaint -based
cases , as well as to comment on the preliminary findings. However, the EDPB notes that neither of the
co-legislators deleted the requirement , when SAs have failed to reach a consensus, to use Articles 61
and 62 GDPR before having the possibility to trigger the urgency procedu res, which the EDPB considers
to be an unnecessary detour21. In addition, the EDPB reiterates its recommendation that the
comments made by a CSA on the summary of key issues should be shared with all CSAs, and not just
with the LSA22.
The EDPB also notes tha t the EP Position requires the summary of key issues to be regularly updated
by the LSA without undue delay to reflect any factual or legal changes that emerge during the course
of the procedure (Art. 9(2a) EP Position ). While it is true that such regular updates could enable the

20 For instance, such technical solutions would also need to take into account the fact that under the EP report,
internal delibera tions of the supervisory authority or deliberations between supervisory authorities shall not be
part of the joint case file. While this in line with the EDPS and EDPB recommendation that correspondence and
exchanges between SAs should be considered intern al and hence not accessible to the parties under
investigation/the complainant, their exclusion from the joint case file implies that SAs would have to manage
different communication flows and exchange documents via different channels, which might create c onfusion
and additional workload .
21 As explained in more details in the JO, paras 58 -59.
22 As explained in more details in the JO, para. 53. 6
LSA to better inform CSAs on ongoing investigations and to consider factual or legal changes occurring
during the procedure, they would also create practical difficulties. More specifically, the evolving
nature of the summary of ke y issues would make it difficult for the CSAs to anticipate changes and
react in a timely manner to the update . Furthermore, legal uncertainty may arise as CSAs will not be
necessarily aware of when the document would be considered finalised and the observations
submitted on the summary of key issues might have the effect of overloading the LSA .
In respect of the amendments made by the Council in Articles 9(5) and 14(8) of the Council Position23,
the EDPB recalls the need for the LSA to cooperate with the CSAs in the context of national
administrative appeal procedures concerning a decision agreed upon in the cooperation mechanism ,
as such decision is binding upon the LSA and the CSAs24. However, if the co -legislators decide to include
these provisions, the EDPB would recommend further clarifying what ‘subsequent domestic
procedure ’ refers to.
Application of enhanced cooperation (Opt -out from Chapter III of the Proposal ) -The EDPB notes
that Article 6bis of the Council Position provides for an opt -out possibility for the LSA, i.e. not to apply
the new rules for enhanced cooperation to certain simpler and more straightforward cases , and
Recital 10b of the Council Position provides examples of such cases . The EDPB considers this approach
to be appropriate , as it would enable SAs to have a certain flexibility in dealing with cross -border cases
and use resources more effectively . The mechanism also respects the core principle of cooperation ,
since the CSAs can object to the LSA's assessment leading to the no n-application of the enhanced
cooperation to a case.
The EDPB takes the view that the opt -out possibility relates to the entire Chapter III of the Proposal.
At the same time, t he Council Position provides that ‘in such a case, the right to be heard of the parties
under investigation and/or of the complainant shall be ensured mutatis mutandis as provided in
Section II and Article 14 and 17 of this Regulation ’ (Article 6bis(2) Council Position ). The EDPB recalls
that the modalities of exercising such right should be harmonised and suggests specifying what is
meant by applying the right to be heard ‘mutatis mutandis as provided in Section II and Article 14 and
17 of this Regulat ion’.
4. PROCEDURAL DEADLINES
The EDPB positively notes that both the EP and the Coun cil take into account the remarks made in the
Joint Opinion concerning procedural deadlines . In particular, the EDPB welcomes the introduction of
additional deadlines by the Council , but highlights that such deadlines should be realistic in order for
SAs to be able to meet them in practice. The EDPB also welcomes the possibility to remain flexible
where appropriate and extend certain deadlines on account of the complexity of the cases . The EDPB
also stresses that such extensions , where applicable, should n ot be for an indefinite period of time
and that there should always be sufficient clarity on the total duration of the procedure.

23 These provisions specify that where the LSA is required by national law to engage in subsequent domestic
procedur e related to the same case, the summary of key issue (Article 9(5)) and the preliminary findings (Article
14(8)) shall be prepared again if the LSA intends to deviate from previous consensus on the case.
24 Article 60(6) GDPR 7
5. REQUEST THAT THE LSA CONDUCT AN EX OFFIC IO PROCEDURE
The EDPB notes that the EP introduces the possibility for each CSA to re quest an ex officio procedure
by the LSA , provided that certain substantive and procedural condition s are fulfilled (Article 5a(1) EP
Position ). It also requires the LSA to take concrete actions within a strict deadline (Article 5a(2) EP
Position ). The EDP B recalls that the sharing of competences and responsibilities among the
supervisory authorities is of necessity underpinned by the existence of sincere and effective
cooperation between SAs. While recognising the objective of ensuring that potential GDPR
infringements are brought to the attention of the LSA and investigated without delay, the EDPB has
doubts as to the added value of the provision as proposed in the EP Positio n. The EDPB considers that
cooperation can be further streamlined on the basis of the tools explicitly provided by the GDPR,
notably those contained in Article s 61-62 GDPR. The refore, the EDPB invites the co -legislators to
reconsider Article 5a as introduced by the EP Position .
6. RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIV E JUDICIAL REMEDY AG AINST A SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
With regard to the right to an effective judicial remedy against a data protection authority, the EDPB
notes the introduction by the EP of a new Article 26b in Section 1 of Chapter III of the Proposal . This
article explicitly provides for three specific scenarios where each party to the procedure shall have the
right to an effective judicial remedy, namely when the complaint -receiving SA does not use its powers
to ensure another SA makes progress (Article 26b(1)(a) EP Position ); the LSA does not comply with the
deadlines of the regulation (Article 26b(1)(b) EP Position ); or an SA does not comply with an EDPB
binding decision (Article 26b(1)(c) EP Position ). In addition, Article 26b(3) of the EP Position states that
if a court finds that a supervisory authority has not fulfilled its duties, it shall have the power to order
that supervisory authority to take the necessary action .
The EDPB recalls that the right to an effective judicial remedy is already protected under Article 78
GDPR. Howeve r, should the co -legislators decide to extend this right as proposed by the EP, some
important clarifications need to be provided. In relation to the first scenario mentioned above (i.e.
when the complaint -receiving SA does not use its powers to ensure that another SA makes progress
on the file), it is unclear which ’powers‘ a complaint -receiving SA would be required to use, and in
which cases . This can be further clarified, for example by adding a reference to the relevant arti cles of
the GDPR or to the ne w regulation providing for such powers . In relation to Article 26b(3) of the EP
Position, the EDPB would w elcome clarifications on which court(s) would be competent to review
decisions of the SAs.
7. PROCEDURAL DETERMINA TIONS BY THE EDPB
The EP Position introduce s a new Article 26a entitled ‘procedural determinations by the Board ’. The
EDPB understands the objective of this provision to be to avoid deadlocks arising from diverging
assessments or inaction of supervisory authorities involved in a cross -bord er case.
While the EDPB shares this objective , it highlights that this provision may increase recourse to the
urgency procedure and to potential escalation s to the Board , which will lead to an increased burden
for the EDPB (also considering the extremely short legal deadline for the urgency procedure) .
The EDPB sug gests that , instead of linking procedural determination s to the Art icle 66 GDPR
procedure, it should be introduced as a sui generis procedure, the details of which should be
determined by the EDPB itself in its Rules of Procedure. In light of the principles of loyal cooperation 8
and mutual trust, the new regulation should make sure that the SAs should first endeavour to find an
agreement , and a procedural determination procedure should only be a ddressed as an ultima ratio .
For the sake of clarity and legal certainty, t he EDPB also suggest s that, instead of referring to ‘any
procedural dispute arising between supervisory authorities in cases foreseen by this Regulation’ ,
Article 26a of the EP Pos ition should clearly list the relevant provisions subject to procedural
determinations.
8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION P ROCEDURE
Relevant and reasoned objections (RROs) – Concerning Article 18 of the Proposal, the EDPB welcomes
some of the changes made by the EP ( removes the limitation for RR Os to only concern the elements
included in the draft decision and some formal requirements) and especially by the Council (removes
the formal requirements , includes a reference to legal elements and allows RROs on the scope of the
investigation ), as recommended in the JO. However, the EDPB reiterates that it should be possible for
CSAs to raise objections on all factual and legal elements of the file25 (not just on the ones mentioned
in the draft decision) and that formal requir ements should be entirely dealt with by the EDPB26. In
addition, as previously mentioned in para 9 of the present Statement , it should also be possible for
CSAs to raise objections to ‘sui generis draft decisions ’ submitted in the context of amicable
settle ments.
Therefore, the EDPB reiterates its view that Article 18 of the Proposal should be deleted from the final
text of the new regulation . Alternatively, the EDPB suggests including the provision as amended by
the Council , while taking into account the ab ove-mentioned recommendations .
Right to be heard in the dispute resolution procedure – Concerning the right to be heard in the dispute
resolution procedure and Article 24 of the Proposal, the EDPB notes that the EP replaces this provision
with a new general article on 'common procedural standards' (Article 2b EP Position ). While the EDPB
welcomes the goal of ha rmonising the right to be heard in the dispute resolution procedure and
ensuring that it is effectively granted, it takes the view that such general approach does not provide
the necessary details and clarifications for the proper administration of the rig ht to be heard in
practice.
The EDPB also notes that the Council modifies Article 24 of the Proposal . Article 24(1) of the Council
Position requires the EDPB, whe n it intends to adopt a decision requiring the LSA to amend its (revised)
draft decision, to assess whether the elements on which the EDPB will rely have already been subject
to the right to be heard27. This assessment is already currently carried out by the EDPB in every case ,
at the very initial stage . The refore, the EDPB does not see the added value of the requirement
proposed by the Council in Article 24(1).
Moreover, under Article 24(1bis) of the Council Position , should the EDPB find that the parties under
investigation or the complainant have not been already provided with the right to be heard on those

25 Which is consistent with Article 4(24) GDPR.
26 EDPB Guidelines 09/2020 on relevant and reasoned objection already provide sufficient details on the
formal and substantive requirements.
27 On elements on which the parties under investigation and/or, in the case of full or partial rejection of a
complaint, the complainant . 9
elements, the EDPB would be required to provide them with a ‘statement of reasons ’. As previously
highlighted in the JO28, the concept of ’statement o f reasons ’ is not defined , but it is the EDPB ’s
understanding that it would include orientations about the content of the future binding decision . The
provision of a statement of reasons would therefore require the EDPB to reach a full agreement on
these o rientations , and indirectly on the substance of the future binding decision within the already
tight legal deadlines . This will clearly jeopardis e the EDPB’s ability to adopt the binding decision on
time29. In addition, the EDPB deems this practice ineffici ent compared to the current one where the
parties under investigation and/or the complainant should be given the opportunity to provide their
views before the dispute reaches the EDPB, i.e. early in the process, in accordance with the
architecture of the one -stop -shop mechanism and the CJEU case law30.
In light of the above, the EDPB urges again the co -legislators to delete Article 24 of the Proposal.
Alternatively, the EDPB suggests amending the Council’s text i n order to replace the requirement to
share a statement of reasons with a requirement to hear the parties/the complainant31 on the
elements the EDPB intends to rely upon in order to adopt its decision and on which they have not had
yet an opportunity to exp ress their views . This also correspond s to the current practice32.
In case the co-legislator s would decide to not follow the views of the EDPB, a suspension of the legal
deadline for adoption of the binding decision should be provided in case the parties n eed to be heard
by the EDPB. However, this solution would still require the need for the EDPB to draft an extra
document within the tight deadline33, with the consequence that the possibility for the EDPB to adopt
its decision within the legal deadlines wou ld clearly be jeopardised.
9. URGEN T OPINIONS AND URGEN T BINDING DECISIONS
Concerning the urgency procedure, the EDPB very much welcomes that both the EP and the Council
remove the restrictions on the geographical scope of the final measures, a key point highlighted in the
JO34. More specifically, the EDPB welcomes the EP’s clarification that urgent binding decisions shall be
addressed to the LSA and all the CSAs and shall specify the SAs that would need to adopt final

28 See JO para 149 .
29 The maximum deadline is 2 months. The proposal would imply the need to organise 3 plenary meetings within
this time frame (one to decide whether the objections are rele vant/reasoned, one to decide and adopt the
statement of reasons, and a last one to adopt the binding decision), instead of one as currently happens.
According to the EDPB Rules of procedure, documents need to be shared 10 days before the meeting. All the
documents subject to plenary decisions must be prepared at technical level in subgroup meetings and are also
generally subject to debates in the Strategic Advisory Subgroup. Documents are generally circulated a week
ahead of those subgroup meetings. Conside ring the fact that Article 65 binding decisions generally require 6
subgroup meetings, it is simply practically not feasible for the EDPB to prepare, discuss and adopt a statement
of reasons in addition to the drafting of the binding decision.
30 See JO, fo otnotes 78 and 79.
31 In case following or rejecting the objections may lead to a full or partial rejection of the complaint.
32 See for instance para s 12 and 25 of EDPB binding decision 01/2022, para s 22-23 of urgent binding decision
01/2021 and paras 68-69 of urgent binding decision 01/2023.
33 The deadline is tight considering the fact that CSAs can raise any number of objections which lead the EDPB
to address (and to adopt with a two -third majority of its members) an unlimited number of legal question s,
always within the same deadline of 2 months.
34 See JO, paras 113 -116. 10
measures (Article 28(2) EP Position) . The EDPB also recalls its recommendation to clarify that the EDPB
should be able to instruct the competent SA to impose different/additional final measures than those
requested by the requesting SA, that requests for an urgent opinion/decision need to be m ade no
later than 4 weeks prior to the expiry of the provisional measures, as well as the other practical
recommendations made in the JO35.
In addition, concerning Article 28.1ter of the Council Position, which provides for an assessment by
the EDPB of whet her the parties have been heard on the elements relied upon for the adoption of an
urgent decision, the EDPB highlights that it is first for the SAs to ensure that the right to be heard has
been granted at national level before the file reaches the EDPB and that its current approach does
already envisage such an assessment in any c ase.
10. GENERAL COMMENTS
Cooperation between the EDPS and national SAs – The EDPB reiterates that the need for effective
and efficient cooperation is not limited to cross -border cas es involving multiple national SAs. The same
need exists where personal data flows from Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies (EUIs) to
other public bodies or private entities within the European Economic Area (EEA) and vice -versa. The
EDPB call s on the co-legislator s to address the existing obstacles to efficient cooperation between the
national SAs and the EDPS through a specific provision36.
On translations – the EDPB reiterates its recommendation that the new regulation should refrain from
setting specific rules concerning translations of documents , in order to leave room for mutual
agreement between the SAs37. In this regard, the EDPB supports the Council ’s propos al to delet e
Article 6 of the Proposal.
On the entry into f orce and application, evaluation and review – The EDPB supports the approach
suggested by the Council (Articles 29bis and 31 Council Position) , which should allow sufficient time
for implementation of the new regulation.

For the European Data Protection B oard ,
The Chair
(Anu Talus )

35 See JO, paras 113 -128.
36 See EDPS contribution in the context of the Commission initiative to further specify procedural rules relating
to the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (G DPR) , issued on 25 April 2023, Section 3.1, with
a proposal for a provision in Annex I; see JO, paragraphs 182 -189.
37 Joint Opinion, paragraph 71.