LeX-Ray

The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU ) provide that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

The principles of, and rules on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data should, whatever their nationality or residence, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular their right to the protection of personal data. This Directive is intended to contribute to the accomplishment of an area of freedom, security and justice.

Rapid technological developments and globalisation have brought new challenges for the protection of personal data. The scale of the collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly. Technology allows personal data to be processed on an unprecedented scale in order to pursue activities such as the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties.

The free flow of personal data between competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security within the Union and the transfer of such personal data to third countries and international organisations, should be facilitated while ensuring a high level of protection of personal data. Those developments require the building of a strong and more coherent framework for the protection of personal data in the Union, backed by strong enforcement.

Directive 1995/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ) applies to all processing of personal data in Member States in both the public and the private sectors. However, it does not apply to the processing of personal data in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community law, such as activities in the areas of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation.

Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA ( 4 ) applies in the areas of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. The scope of application of that Framework Decision is limited to the processing of personal data transmitted or made available between Member States.

Ensuring a consistent and high level of protection of the personal data of natural persons and facilitating the exchange of personal data between competent authorities of Members States is crucial in order to ensure effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. To that end, the level of protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, should be equivalent in all Member States. Effective protection of personal data throughout the Union requires the strengthening of the rights of data subjects and of the obligations of those who process personal data, as well as equivalent powers for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the rules for the protection of personal data in the Member States.

Article 16(2) TFEU mandates the European Parliament and the Council to lay down the rules relating to the protection of natural person s with regard to the processing of personal data and the rules relating to the free movement of personal data.

On that basis, GDPR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ) lays down general rules to protect natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data and to ensure the free movement of personal data within the Union.

In Declaration No 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the conference acknowledged that specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation based on Article 16 TFEU may prove necessary because of the specific nature of those fields.

It is therefore appropriate for those fields to be addressed by a directive that lays down the specific rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, respecting the specific nature of those activities. Such competent authorities may include not only public authorities such as the judicial authorities, the police or other law-enforcement authorities but also any other body or entity entrusted by Member State law to exercise public authority and public powers for the purposes of this Directive. Where such a body or entity processes personal data for purposes other than for the purposes of this Directive, GDPR applies. GDPR therefore applies in cases where a body or entity collects personal data for other purposes and further processes those personal data in order to comply with a legal obligation to which it is subject. For example, for the purposes of investigation detection or prosecution of criminal offences financial institutions retain certain personal data which are processed by them, and provide those personal data only to the competent national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with Member State law. A body or entity which processes personal data on behalf of such authorities within the scope of this Directive should be bound by a contract or other legal act and by the provisions applicable to processors pursuant to this Directive, while the application of GDPR remains unaffected for the processing of personal data by the processor outside the scope of this Directive.

The activities carried out by the police or other law-enforcement authorities are focused mainly on the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, including police activities without prior knowledge if an incident is a criminal offence or not. Such activities can also include the exercise of authority by taking coercive measures such as police activities at demonstrations, major sporting events and riots. They also include maintaining law and order as a task conferred on the police or other law-enforcement authorities where necessary to safeguard against and prevent threats to public security and to fundamental interests of the society protected by law which may lead to a criminal offence. Member States may entrust competent authorities with other tasks which are not necessarily carried out for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, so that the processing of personal data for those other purposes, in so far as it is within the scope of Union law, falls within the scope of GDPR.

A criminal offence within the meaning of this Directive should be an autonomous concept of Union law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’).

Since this Directive should not apply to the processing of personal data in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law, activities concerning national security, activities of agencies or units dealing with national security issues and the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union ( TEU ) should not be considered to be activities falling within the scope of this Directive.

In order to ensure the same level of protection for natural persons through legally enforceable rights throughout the Union and to prevent divergences hampering the exchange of personal data between competent authorities, this Directive should provide for harmonised rules for the protection and the free movement of personal data processed for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. The approximation of Member States' laws should not result in any lessening of the personal data protection they afford but should, on the contrary, seek to ensure a high level of protection within the Union. Member States should not be precluded from providing higher safeguards than those established in this Directive for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the data subject with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities.

This Directive is without prejudice to the principle of public access to official documents. Under GDPR personal data in official documents held by a public authority or a public or private body for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest may be disclosed by that authority or body in accordance with Union or Member State law to which the public authority or body is subject in order to reconcile public access to official documents with the right to the protection of personal data.

The protection afforded by this Directive should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of their personal data.

In order to prevent creating a serious risk of circumvention, the protection of natural persons should be technologically neutral and should not depend on the techniques used. The protection of natural persons should apply to the processing of personal data by automated means, as well as to manual processing, if the personal data are contained or are intended to be contained in a filing system. Files or sets of files, as well as their cover pages, which are not structured according to specific criteria should not fall within the scope of this Directive.

Regulation 2001/45 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 6 ) applies to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Regulation 2001/45 and other Union legal acts applicable to such processing of personal data should be adapted to the principles and rules established in GDPR.

This Directive does not preclude Member States from specifying processing operations and processing procedures in national rules on criminal procedures in relation to the processing of personal data by courts and other judicial authorities, in particular as regards personal data contained in a judicial decision or in records in relation to criminal proceedings.

The principles of data protection should apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable natural person. To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used, such as singling out, either by the controller or by another person to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. To ascertain whether means are reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person, account should be taken of all objective factors, such as the costs of and the amount of time required for identification, taking into consideration the available technology at the time of the processing and technological developments. The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is no longer identifiable.

Public authorities to which personal data are disclosed in accordance with a legal obligation for the exercise of their official mission, such as tax and customs authorities, financial investigation units, independent administrative authorities, or financial market authorities responsible for the regulation and supervision of securities markets should not be regarded as recipients if they receive personal data which are necessary to carry out a particular inquiry in the general interest, in accordance with Union or Member State law. The requests for disclosure sent by the public authorities should always be in writing, reasoned and occasional and should not concern the entirety of a filing system or lead to the interconnection of filing systems. The processing of personal data by those public authorities should comply with the applicable data protection rules according to the purposes of the processing.

Genetic data should be defined as personal data relating to the inherited or acquired genetic characteristics of a natural person which give unique information about the physiology or health of that natural person and which result from the analysis of a biological sample from the natural person in question, in particular chromosomal, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) analysis, or from the analysis of another element enabling equivalent information to be obtained. Considering the complexity and sensitivity of genetic information, there is a great risk of misuse and re-use for various purposes by the controller. Any discrimination based on genetic features should in principle be prohibited.

Personal data concerning health should include all data pertaining to the health status of a data subject which reveal information relating to the past, current or future physical or mental health status of the data subject. This includes information about the natural person collected in the course of the registration for, or the provision of, health care services as referred to in APRICBHD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 7 ) to that natural person; a number, symbol or particular assigned to a natural person to uniquely identify the natural person for health purposes; information derived from the testing or examination of a body part or bodily substance, including from genetic data and biological samples; and any information on, for example, a disease, disability, disease risk, medical history, clinical treatment or the physiological or biomedical state of the data subject independent of its source, for example from a physician or other health professional, a hospital, a medical device or an in vitro diagnostic test.

All Member States are affiliated to the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol). To fulfil its mission, Interpol receives, stores and circulates personal data to assist competent authorities in preventing and combating international crime. It is therefore appropriate to strengthen cooperation between the Union and Interpol by promoting an efficient exchange of personal data whilst ensuring respect for fundamental rights and freedoms regarding the automatic processing of personal data. Where personal data are transferred from the Union to Interpol, and to countries which have delegated members to Interpol, this Directive, in particular the provisions on international transfers, should apply. This Directive should be without prejudice to the specific rules laid down in Council Common Position 2005/69/JHA ( 8 ) and Council Decision 2007/533/JHA ( 9 ) .

Any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent in relation to the natural persons concerned, and only processed for specific purposes laid down by law. This does not in itself prevent the law-enforcement authorities from carrying out activities such as covert investigations or video surveillance. Such activities can be done for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, as long as they are laid down by law and constitute a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the legitimate interests of the natural person concerned. The data protection principle of fair processing is a distinct notion from the right to a fair trial as defined in Article 47 of the Charter and in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Natural persons should be made aware of risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to the processing of their personal data and how to exercise their rights in relation to the processing. In particular, the specific purposes for which the personal data are processed should be explicit and legitimate and determined at the time of the collection of the personal data. The personal data should be adequate and relevant for the purposes for which they are processed. It should, in particular, be ensured that the personal data collected are not excessive and not kept longer than is necessary for the purpose for which they are processed. Personal data should be processed only if the purpose of the processing could not reasonably be fulfilled by other means. In order to ensure that the data are not kept longer than necessary, time limits should be established by the controller for erasure or for a periodic review. Member States should lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer periods for archiving in the public interest, scientific, statistical or historical use.

For the prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, it is necessary for competent authorities to process personal data collected in the context of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of specific criminal offences beyond that context in order to develop an understanding of criminal activities and to make links between different criminal offences detected.

In order to maintain security in relation to processing and to prevent processing in infringement of this Directive, personal data should be processed in a manner that ensures an appropriate level of security and confidentiality, including by preventing unauthorised access to or use of personal data and the equipment used for the processing, and that takes into account available state of the art and technology, the costs of implementation in relation to the risks and the nature of the personal data to be protected.

Personal data should be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes within the scope of this Directive and should not be processed for purposes incompatible with the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. If personal data are processed by the same or another controller for a purpose within the scope of this Directive other than that for which it has been collected, such processing should be permitted under the condition that such processing is authorised in accordance with applicable legal provisions and is necessary for and proportionate to that other purpose.

The principle of accuracy of data should be applied while taking account of the nature and purpose of the processing concerned. In particular in judicial proceedings, statements containing personal data are based on the subjective perception of natural persons and are not always verifiable. Consequently, the requirement of accuracy should not appertain to the accuracy of a statement but merely to the fact that a specific statement has been made.

It is inherent to the processing of personal data in the areas of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation that personal data relating to different categories of data subjects are processed. Therefore, a clear distinction should, where applicable and as far as possible, be made between personal data of different categories of data subjects such as: suspects; persons convicted of a criminal offence; victims and other parties, such as witnesses; persons possessing relevant information or contacts; and associates of suspects and convicted criminals. This should not prevent the application of the right of presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the Charter and by the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights respectively.

The competent authorities should ensure that personal data which are inaccurate, incomplete or no longer up to date are not transmitted or made available. In order to ensure the protection of natural persons, the accuracy, completeness or the extent to which the personal data are up to date and the reliability of the personal data transmitted or made available, the competent authorities should, as far as possible, add necessary information in all transmissions of personal data.

Where this Directive refers to Member State law, a legal basis or a legislative measure, this does not necessarily require a legislative act adopted by a parliament, without prejudice to requirements pursuant to the constitutional order of the Member State concerned. However, such a Member State law, legal basis or legislative measure should be clear and precise and its application foreseeable for those subject to it, as required by the case-law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Member State law regulating the processing of personal data within the scope of this Directive should specify at least the objectives, the personal data to be processed, the purposes of the processing and procedures for preserving the integrity and confidentiality of personal data and procedures for its destruction, thus providing sufficient guarantees against the risk of abuse and arbitrariness.

The processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, should cover any operation or set of operations which are performed upon personal data or sets of personal data for those purposes, whether by automated means or otherwise, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, alignment or combination, restriction of processing, erasure or destruction. In particular, the rules of this Directive should apply to the transmission of personal data for the purposes of this Directive to a recipient not subject to this Directive. Such a recipient should encompass a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body to which personal data are lawfully disclosed by the competent authority. Where personal data were initially collected by a competent authority for one of the purposes of this Directive, GDPR should apply to the processing of those data for purposes other than the purposes of this Directive where such processing is authorised by Union or Member State law. In particular, the rules of GDPR should apply to the transmission of personal data for purposes outside the scope of this Directive. For the processing of personal data by a recipient that is not a competent authority or that is not acting as such within the meaning of this Directive and to which personal data are lawfully disclosed by a competent authority, GDPR should apply. While implementing this Directive, Member States should also be able to further specify the application of the rules of GDPR, subject to the conditions set out therein.

In order to be lawful, the processing of personal data under this Directive should be necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest by a competent authority based on Union or Member State law for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. Those activities should cover the protection of vital interests of the data subject. The performance of the tasks of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences institutionally conferred by law to the competent authorities allows them to require or order natural persons to comply with requests made. In such a case, the consent of the data subject, as defined in GDPR, should not provide a legal ground for processing personal data by competent authorities. Where the data subject is required to comply with a legal obligation, the data subject has no genuine and free choice, so that the reaction of the data subject could not be considered to be a freely given indication of his or her wishes. This should not preclude Member States from providing, by law, that the data subject may agree to the processing of his or her personal data for the purposes of this Directive, such as DNA tests in criminal investigations or the monitoring of his or her location with electronic tags for the execution of criminal penalties.

Member States should provide that where Union or Member State law applicable to the transmitting competent authority provides for specific conditions applicable in specific circumstances to the processing of personal data, such as the use of handling codes, the transmitting competent authority should inform the recipient of such personal data of those conditions and the requirement to respect them. Such conditions could, for example, include a prohibition against transmitting the personal data further to others, or using them for purposes other than those for which they were transmitted to the recipient, or informing the data subject in the case of a limitation of the right of information without the prior approval of the transmitting competent authority. Those obligations should also apply to transfers by the transmitting competent authority to recipients in third countries or international organisations. Member States should ensure that the transmitting competent authority does not apply such conditions to recipients in other Member States or to agencies, offices and bodies established pursuant to Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of the TFEU other than those applicable to similar data transmissions within the Member State of that competent authority.

Personal data which are, by their nature, particularly sensitive in relation to fundamental rights and freedoms merit specific protection as the context of their processing could create significant risks to the fundamental rights and freedoms. Those personal data should include personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, whereby the use of the term ‘racial origin’ in this Directive does not imply an acceptance by the Union of theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races. Such personal data should not be processed, unless processing is subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject laid down by law and is allowed in cases authorised by law; where not already authorised by such a law, the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person; or the processing relates to data which are manifestly made public by the data subject. Appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject could include the possibility to collect those data only in connection with other data on the natural person concerned, the possibility to secure the data collected adequately, stricter rules on the access of staff of the competent authority to the data and the prohibition of transmission of those data. The processing of such data should also be allowed by law where the data subject has explicitly agreed to the processing that is particularly intrusive to him or her. However, the consent of the data subject should not provide in itself a legal ground for processing such sensitive personal data by competent authorities.

The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces adverse legal effects concerning, or significantly affects, him or her. In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, including the provision of specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, in particular to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment or to challenge the decision. Profiling that results in discrimination against natural persons on the basis of personal data which are by their nature particularly sensitive in relation to fundamental rights and freedoms should be prohibited under the conditions laid down in Articles 21 and 52 of the Charter.

In order to enable him or her to exercise his or her rights, any information to the data subject should be easily accessible, including on the website of the controller, and easy to understand, using clear and plain language. Such information should be adapted to the needs of vulnerable persons such as children.

Modalities should be provided for facilitating the exercise of the data subject's rights under the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive, including mechanisms to request and, if applicable, obtain, free of charge, in particular, access to and rectification or erasure of personal data and restriction of processing. The controller should be obliged to respond to requests of the data subject without undue delay, unless the controller applies limitations to data subject rights in accordance with this Directive. Moreover, if requests are manifestly unfounded or excessive, such as where the data subject unreasonably and repetitiously requests information or where the data subject abuses his or her right to receive information, for example, by providing false or misleading information when making the request, the controller should be able to charge a reasonable fee or refuse to act on the request.

Where the controller requests the provision of additional information necessary to confirm the identity of the data subject, that information should be processed only for that specific purpose and should not be stored for longer than needed for that purpose.

At least the following information should be made available to the data subject: the identity of the controller, the existence of the processing operation, the purposes of the processing, the right to lodge a complaint and the existence of the right to request from the controller access to and rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing. This could take place on the website of the competent authority. In addition, in specific cases and in order to enable the exercise of his or her rights, the data subject should be informed of the legal basis for the processing and of how long the data will be stored, in so far as such further information is necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances in which the data are processed, to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject.

A natural person should have the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and to exercise this right easily and at reasonable intervals, in order to be aware of and verify the lawfulness of the processing. Every data subject should therefore have the right to know, and obtain communications about, the purposes for which the data are processed, the period during which the data are processed and the recipients of the data, including those in third countries. Where such communications include information as to the origin of the personal data, the information should not reveal the identity of natural persons, in particular confidential sources. For that right to be complied with, it is sufficient that the data subject be in possession of a full summary of those data in an intelligible form, that is to say a form which allows that data subject to become aware of those data and to verify that they are accurate and processed in accordance with this Directive, so that it is possible for him or her to exercise the rights conferred on him or her by this Directive. Such a summary could be provided in the form of a copy of the personal data undergoing processing.

Member States should be able to adopt legislative measures delaying, restricting or omitting the information to data subjects or restricting, wholly or partly, the access to their personal data to the extent that and as long as such a measure constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the fundamental rights and the legitimate interests of the natural person concerned, to avoid obstructing official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures, to avoid prejudicing the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, to protect public security or national security, or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The controller should assess, by way of a concrete and individual examination of each case, whether the right of access should be partially or completely restricted.

Any refusal or restriction of access should in principle be set out in writing to the data subject and include the factual or legal reasons on which the decision is based.

Any restriction of the rights of the data subject must comply with the Charter and with the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights respectively, and in particular respect the essence of those rights and freedoms.

A natural person should have the right to have inaccurate personal data concerning him or her rectified, in particular where it relates to facts, and the right to erasure where the processing of such data infringes this Directive. However, the right to rectification should not affect, for example, the content of a witness testimony. A natural person should also have the right to restriction of processing where he or she contests the accuracy of personal data and its accuracy or inaccuracy cannot be ascertained or where the personal data have to be maintained for purpose of evidence. In particular, instead of erasing personal data, processing should be restricted if in a specific case there are reasonable grounds to believe that erasure could affect the legitimate interests of the data subject. In such a case, restricted data should be processed only for the purpose which prevented their erasure. Methods to restrict the processing of personal data could include, inter alia, moving the selected data to another processing system, for example for archiving purposes, or making the selected data unavailable. In automated filing systems the restriction of processing should in principle be ensured by technical means. The fact that the processing of personal data is restricted should be indicated in the system in such a manner that it is clear that the processing of the personal data is restricted. Such rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing should be communicated to recipients to whom the data have been disclosed and to the competent authorities from which the inaccurate data originated. The controllers should also abstain from further dissemination of such data.

Where the controller denies a data subject his or her right to information, access to or rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing, the data subject should have the right to request that the national supervisory authority verify the lawfulness of the processing. The data subject should be informed of that right. Where the supervisory authority acts on behalf of the data subject, the data subject should be informed by the supervisory authority at least that all necessary verifications or reviews by the supervisory authority have taken place. The supervisory authority should also inform the data subject of the right to seek a judicial remedy.

Where the personal data are processed in the course of a criminal investigation and court proceedings in criminal matters, Member States should be able to provide that the exercise the right to information, access to and rectification or erasure of personal data and restriction of processing is carried out in accordance with national rules on judicial proceedings.

The responsibility and liability of the controller for any processing of personal data carried out by the controller or on the controller's behalf should be established. In particular, the controller should be obliged to implement appropriate and effective measures and should be able to demonstrate that processing activities are in compliance with this Directive. Such measures should take into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing and the risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The measures taken by the controller should include drawing up and implementing specific safeguards in respect of the treatment of personal data of vulnerable natural persons, such as children.

The risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, of varying likelihood and severity, may result from data processing which could lead to physical, material or non-material damage, in particular: where the processing may give rise to discrimination, identity theft or fraud, financial loss, damage to the reputation, loss of confidentiality of data protected by professional secrecy, unauthorised reversal of pseudonymisation or any other significant economic or social disadvantage; where data subjects might be deprived of their rights and freedoms or from exercising control over their personal data; where personal data are processed which reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership; where genetic data or biometric data are processed in order to uniquely identify a person or where data concerning health or data concerning sex life and sexual orientation or criminal convictions and offences or related security measures are processed; where personal aspects are evaluated, in particular analysing and predicting aspects concerning performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences or interests, reliability or behaviour, location or movements, in order to create or use personal profiles; where personal data of vulnerable natural persons, in particular children, are processed; or where processing involves a large amount of personal data and affects a large number of data subjects.

The likelihood and severity of the risk should be determined by reference to the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. Risk should be evaluated on the basis of an objective assessment, through which it is established whether data-processing operations involve a high risk. A high risk is a particular risk of prejudice to the rights and freedoms of data subjects.

The protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data requires that appropriate technical and organisational measures are taken, to ensure that the requirements of this Directive are met. The implementation of such measures should not depend solely on economic considerations. In order to be able to demonstrate compliance with this Directive, the controller should adopt internal policies and implement measures which adhere in particular to the principles of data protection by design and data protection by default. Where the controller has carried out a data protection impact assessment pursuant to this Directive, the results should be taken into account when developing those measures and procedures. The measures could consist, inter alia, of the use of pseudonymisation, as early as possible. The use of pseudonymisation for the purposes of this Directive can serve as a tool that could facilitate, in particular, the free flow of personal data within the area of freedom, security and justice.

The protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects as well as the responsibility and liability of controllers and processors, also in relation to the monitoring by and measures of supervisory authorities, requires a clear attribution of the responsibilities set out in this Directive, including where a controller determines the purposes and means of the processing jointly with other controllers or where a processing operation is carried out on behalf of a controller.

The carrying-out of processing by a processor should be governed by a legal act including a contract binding the processor to the controller and stipulating, in particular, that the processor should act only on instructions from the controller. The processor should take into account the principle of data protection by design and by default.

In order to demonstrate compliance with this Directive, the controller or processor should maintain records regarding all categories of processing activities under its responsibility. Each controller and processor should be obliged to cooperate with the supervisory authority and make those records available to it on request, so that they might serve for monitoring those processing operations. The controller or the processor processing personal data in non-automated processing systems should have in place effective methods of demonstrating the lawfulness of the processing, of enabling self-monitoring and of ensuring data integrity and data security, such as logs or other forms of records.

Logs should be kept at least for operations in automated processing systems such as collection, alteration, consultation, disclosure including transfers, combination or erasure. The identification of the person who consulted or disclosed personal data should be logged and from that identification it should be possible to establish the justification for the processing operations. The logs should solely be used for the verification of the lawfulness of the processing, self-monitoring, for ensuring data integrity and data security and criminal proceedings. Self-monitoring also includes internal disciplinary proceedings of competent authorities.

A data protection impact assessment should be carried out by the controller where the processing operations are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of their nature, scope or purposes, which should include, in particular, the measures, safeguards and mechanisms envisaged to ensure the protection of personal data and to demonstrate compliance with this Directive. Impact assessments should cover relevant systems and processes of processing operations, but not individual cases.

In order to ensure effective protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the controller or processor should consult the supervisory authority, in certain cases, prior to the processing.

In order to maintain security and to prevent processing that infringes this Directive, the controller or processor should evaluate the risks inherent in the processing and should implement measures to mitigate those risks, such as encryption. Such measures should ensure an appropriate level of security, including confidentiality and take into account the state of the art, the costs of implementation in relation to the risk and the nature of the personal data to be protected. In assessing data security risks, consideration should be given to the risks that are presented by data processing, such as the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration or unauthorised disclosure of or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed, which may, in particular, lead to physical, material or non-material damage. The controller and processor should ensure that the processing of personal data is not carried out by unauthorised persons.

A personal data breach may, if not addressed in an appropriate and timely manner, result in physical, material or non-material damage to natural persons such as loss of control over their personal data or limitation of their rights, discrimination, identity theft or fraud, financial loss, unauthorised reversal of pseudonymisation, damage to reputation, loss of confidentiality of personal data protected by professional secrecy or any other significant economic or social disadvantage to the natural person concerned. Therefore, as soon as the controller becomes aware that a personal data breach has occurred, the controller should notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, unless the controller is able to demonstrate, in accordance with the accountability principle, that the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Where such notification cannot be achieved within 72 hours, the reasons for the delay should accompany the notification and information may be provided in phases without undue further delay.

Natural persons should be informed without undue delay where the personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, in order to allow them to take the necessary precautions. The communication should describe the nature of the personal data breach and include recommendations for the natural person concerned to mitigate potential adverse effects. Communication to data subjects should be made as soon as reasonably feasible, in close cooperation with the supervisory authority, and respecting guidance provided by it or other relevant authorities. For example, the need to mitigate an immediate risk of damage would call for a prompt communication to data subjects, whereas the need to implement appropriate measures against continuing or similar data breaches may justify more time for the communication. Where avoiding obstruction of official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures, avoiding prejudice to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, protecting public security, protecting national security or protecting the rights and freedoms of others cannot be achieved by delaying or restricting the communication of a personal data breach to the natural person concerned, such communication could, in exceptional circumstances, be omitted.

The controller should designate a person who would assist it in monitoring internal compliance with the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive, except where a Member State decides to exempt courts and other independent judicial authorities when acting in their judicial capacity. That person could be a member of the existing staff of the controller who received special training in data protection law and practice in order to acquire expert knowledge in that field. The necessary level of expert knowledge should be determined, in particular, according to the data processing carried out and the protection required for the personal data processed by the controller. His or her task could be carried out on a part-time or full-time basis. A data protection officer may be appointed jointly by several controllers, taking into account their organisational structure and size, for example in the case of shared resources in central units. That person can also be appointed to different positions within the structure of the relevant controllers. That person should help the controller and the employees processing personal data by informing and advising them on compliance with their relevant data protection obligations. Such data protection officers should be in a position to perform their duties and tasks in an independent manner in accordance with Member State law.

Member States should ensure that a transfer to a third country or to an international organisation takes place only if necessary for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, and that the controller in the third country or international organisation is an authority competent within the meaning of this Directive. A transfer should be carried out only by competent authorities acting as controllers, except where processors are explicitly instructed to transfer on behalf of controllers. Such a transfer may take place in cases where the Commission has decided that the third country or international organisation in question ensures an adequate level of protection, where appropriate safeguards have been provided, or where derogations for specific situations apply. Where personal data are transferred from the Union to controllers, to processors or to other recipients in third countries or international organisations, the level of protection of natural persons provided for in the Union by this Directive should not be undermined, including in cases of onward transfers of personal data from the third country or international organisation to controllers or processors in the same or in another third country or international organisation.

Where personal data are transferred from a Member State to third countries or international organisations, such a transfer should, in principle, take place only after the Member State from which the data were obtained has given its authorisation to the transfer. The interests of efficient law-enforcement cooperation require that where the nature of a threat to the public security of a Member State or a third country or to the essential interests of a Member State is so immediate as to render it impossible to obtain prior authorisation in good time, the competent authority should be able to transfer the relevant personal data to the third country or international organisation concerned without such a prior authorisation. Member States should provide that any specific conditions concerning the transfer should be communicated to third countries or international organisations. Onward transfers of personal data should be subject to prior authorisation by the competent authority that carried out the original transfer. When deciding on a request for the authorisation of an onward transfer, the competent authority that carried out the original transfer should take due account of all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the criminal offence, the specific conditions subject to which, and the purpose for which, the data was originally transferred, the nature and conditions of the execution of the criminal penalty, and the level of personal data protection in the third country or an international organisation to which personal data are onward transferred. The competent authority that carried out the original transfer should also be able to subject the onward transfer to specific conditions. Such specific conditions can be described, for example, in handling codes.

The Commission should be able to decide with effect for the entire Union that certain third countries, a territory or one or more specified sectors within a third country, or an international organisation, offer an adequate level of data protection, thus providing legal certainty and uniformity throughout the Union as regards the third countries or international organisations which are considered to provide such a level of protection. In such cases, transfers of personal data to those countries should be able to take place without the need to obtain any specific authorisation, except where another Member State from which the data were obtained has to give its authorisation to the transfer.

In line with the fundamental values on which the Union is founded, in particular the protection of human rights, the Commission should, in its assessment of the third country, or of a territory or specified sector within a third country, take into account how a particular third country respects the rule of law, access to justice as well as international human rights norms and standards and its general and sectoral law, including legislation concerning public security, defence and national security, as well as public order and criminal law. The adoption of an adequacy decision with regard to a territory or a specified sector in a third country should take into account clear and objective criteria, such as specific processing activities and the scope of applicable legal standards and legislation in force in the third country. The third country should offer guarantees ensuring an adequate level of protection essentially equivalent to that ensured within the Union, in particular where data are processed in one or several specific sectors. In particular, the third country should ensure effective independent data protection supervision and provide for cooperation mechanisms with the Member States' data protection authorities, and the data subjects should be provided with effective and enforceable rights and effective administrative and judicial redress.

Apart from the international commitments the third country or international organisation has entered into, the Commission should also take account of obligations arising from the third country's or international organisation's participation in multilateral or regional systems, in particular in relation to the protection of personal data, as well as the implementation of such obligations. In particular the third country's accession to the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data and its Additional Protocol should be taken into account. The Commission should consult with the European Data Protection Board established by GDPR (the ‘Board’) when assessing the level of protection in third countries or international organisations. The Commission should also take into account any relevant Commission adequacy decision adopted in accordance with Article 45 of GDPR.

The Commission should monitor the functioning of decisions on the level of protection in a third country, a territory or a specified sector within a third country, or an international organisation. In its adequacy decisions, the Commission should provide for a periodic review mechanism of their functioning. That periodic review should be undertaken in consultation with the third country or international organisation in question and should take into account all relevant developments in the third country or international organisation.

The Commission should also be able to recognise that a third country, a territory or a specified sector within a third country, or an international organisation, no longer ensures an adequate level of data protection. Consequently, the transfer of personal data to that third country or international organisation should be prohibited unless the requirements in this Directive relating to transfers subject to appropriate safeguards and derogations for specific situations are fulfilled. Provision should be made for procedures for consultations between the Commission and such third countries or international organisations. The Commission should, in a timely manner, inform the third country or international organisation of the reasons and enter into consultations with it in order to remedy the situation.

Transfers not based on such an adequacy decision should be allowed only where appropriate safeguards have been provided in a legally binding instrument which ensures the protection of personal data or where the controller has assessed all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer and, on the basis of that assessment, considers that appropriate safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data exist. Such legally binding instruments could, for example, be legally binding bilateral agreements which have been concluded by the Member States and implemented in their legal order and which could be enforced by their data subjects, ensuring compliance with data protection requirements and the rights of the data subjects, including the right to obtain effective administrative or judicial redress. The controller should be able to take into account cooperation agreements concluded between Europol or Eurojust and third countries which allow for the exchange of personal data when carrying out the assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer. The controller should be able to also take into account the fact that the transfer of personal data will be subject to confidentiality obligations and the principle of specificity, ensuring that the data will not be processed for other purposes than for the purposes of the transfer. In addition, the controller should take into account that the personal data will not be used to request, hand down or execute a death penalty or any form of cruel and inhuman treatment. While those conditions could be considered to be appropriate safeguards allowing the transfer of data, the controller should be able to require additional safeguards.

Where no adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards exist, a transfer or a category of transfers could take place only in specific situations, if necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person, or to safeguard legitimate interests of the data subject where the law of the Member State transferring the personal data so provides; for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to the public security of a Member State or a third country; in an individual case for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security; or in an individual case for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. Those derogations should be interpreted restrictively and should not allow frequent, massive and structural transfers of personal data, or large-scale transfers of data, but should be limited to data strictly necessary. Such transfers should be documented and should be made available to the supervisory authority on request in order to monitor the lawfulness of the transfer.

Competent authorities of Member States apply bilateral or multilateral international agreements in force, concluded with third countries in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, for the exchange of relevant information to allow them to perform their legally assigned tasks. In principle, this takes place through, or at least with, the cooperation of the authorities competent in the third countries concerned for the purposes of this Directive, sometimes even in the absence of a bilateral or multilateral international agreement. However, in specific individual cases, the regular procedures requiring contacting such an authority in the third country may be ineffective or inappropriate, in particular because the transfer could not be carried out in a timely manner, or because that authority in the third country does not respect the rule of law or international human rights norms and standards, so that competent authorities of Member States could decide to transfer personal data directly to recipients established in those third countries. This may be the case where there is an urgent need to transfer personal data to save the life of a person who is in danger of becoming a victim of a criminal offence or in the interest of preventing an imminent perpetration of a crime, including terrorism. Even if such a transfer between competent authorities and recipients established in third countries should take place only in specific individual cases, this Directive should provide for conditions to regulate such cases. Those provisions should not be considered to be derogations from any existing bilateral or multilateral international agreements in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. Those rules should apply in addition to the other rules of this Directive, in particular those on the lawfulness of processing and Chapter V.

Where personal data move across borders it may put at increased risk the ability of natural persons to exercise data protection rights to protect themselves from the unlawful use or disclosure of those data. At the same time, supervisory authorities may find that they are unable to pursue complaints or conduct investigations relating to the activities outside their borders. Their efforts to work together in the cross-border context may also be hampered by insufficient preventative or remedial powers and inconsistent legal regimes. Therefore, there is a need to promote closer cooperation among data protection supervisory authorities to help them exchange information with their foreign counterparts.

The establishment in Member States of supervisory authorities that are able to exercise their functions with complete independence is an essential component of the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data. The supervisory authorities should monitor the application of the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and should contribute to their consistent application throughout the Union in order to protect natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data. To that end, the supervisory authorities should cooperate with each other and with the Commission.

Member States may entrust a supervisory authority already established under GDPR with the responsibility for the tasks to be performed by the national supervisory authorities to be established under this Directive.

Member States should be allowed to establish more than one supervisory authority to reflect their constitutional, organisational and administrative structure. Each supervisory authority should be provided with the financial and human resources, premises and infrastructure, which are necessary for the effective performance of their tasks, including for the tasks related to mutual assistance and cooperation with other supervisory authorities throughout the Union. Each supervisory authority should have a separate, public annual budget, which may be part of the overall state or national budget.

Supervisory authorities should be subject to independent control or monitoring mechanisms regarding their financial expenditure, provided that such financial control does not affect their independence.

The general conditions for the member or members of the supervisory authority should be laid down by Member State law and should in particular provide that those members should be either appointed by the parliament or the government or the head of State of the Member State based on a proposal from the government or a member of the government, or the parliament or its chamber, or by an independent body entrusted by Member State law with the appointment by means of a transparent procedure. In order to ensure the independence of the supervisory authority, the member or members should act with integrity, should refrain from any action incompatible with their duties and should not, during their term of office, engage in any incompatible occupation, whether gainful or not. In order to ensure the independence of the supervisory authority, the staff should be chosen by the supervisory authority which may include an intervention by an independent body entrusted by Member State law.

While this Directive applies also to the activities of national courts and other judicial authorities, the competence of the supervisory authorities should not cover the processing of personal data where courts are acting in their judicial capacity, in order to safeguard the independence of judges in the performance of their judicial tasks. That exemption should be limited to judicial activities in court cases and not apply to other activities where judges might be involved in accordance with Member State law. Member States should also be able to provide that the competence of the supervisory authority does not cover the processing of personal data of other independent judicial authorities when acting in their judicial capacity, for example public prosecutor's office. In any event, the compliance with the rules of this Directive by the courts and other independent judicial authorities is always subject to independent supervision in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Charter.

Each supervisory authority should handle complaints lodged by any data subject and should investigate the matter or transmit it to the competent supervisory authority. The investigation following a complaint should be carried out, subject to judicial review, to the extent that is appropriate in the specific case. The supervisory authority should inform the data subject of the progress and the outcome of the complaint within a reasonable period. If the case requires further investigation or coordination with another supervisory authority, intermediate information should be provided to the data subject.

In order to ensure effective, reliable and consistent monitoring of compliance with and enforcement of this Directive throughout the Union pursuant to the TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice, the supervisory authorities should have in each Member State the same tasks and effective powers, including investigative, corrective, and advisory powers which constitute necessary means to perform their tasks. However, their powers should not interfere with specific rules for criminal proceedings, including investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, or the independence of the judiciary. Without prejudice to the powers of prosecutorial authorities under Member State law, supervisory authorities should also have the power to bring infringements of this Directive to the attention of the judicial authorities or to engage in legal proceedings. The powers of supervisory authorities should be exercised in accordance with appropriate procedural safeguards laid down by Union and Member State law, impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. In particular each measure should be appropriate, necessary and proportionate in view of ensuring compliance with this Directive, taking into account the circumstances of each individual case, respect the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure that would adversely affect the person concerned is taken, and avoiding superfluous costs and excessive inconvenience to the person concerned. Investigative powers as regards access to premises should be exercised in accordance with specific requirements in Member State law, such as the requirement to obtain a prior judicial authorisation. The adoption of a legally binding decision should be subject to judicial review in the Member State of the supervisory authority that adopted the decision.

The supervisory authorities should assist one another in performing their tasks and provide mutual assistance, so as to ensure the consistent application and enforcement of the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive.

The Board should contribute to the consistent application of this Directive throughout the Union, including advising the Commission and promoting the cooperation of the supervisory authorities throughout the Union.

Every data subject should have the right to lodge a complaint with a single supervisory authority and to an effective judicial remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter where the data subject considers that his or her rights under provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive are infringed or where the supervisory authority does not act on a complaint, partially or wholly rejects or dismisses a complaint or does not act where such action is necessary to protect the rights of the data subject. The investigation following a complaint should be carried out, subject to judicial review, to the extent that is appropriate in the specific case. The competent supervisory authority should inform the data subject of the progress and the outcome of the complaint within a reasonable period. If the case requires further investigation or coordination with another supervisory authority, intermediate information should be provided to the data subject. In order to facilitate the submission of complaints, each supervisory authority should take measures such as providing a complaint submission form which can also be completed electronically, without excluding other means of communication.

Each natural or legal person should have the right to an effective judicial remedy before the competent national court against a decision of a supervisory authority which produces legal effects concerning that person. Such a decision concerns in particular the exercise of investigative, corrective and authorisation powers by the supervisory authority or the dismissal or rejection of complaints. However, that right does not encompass other measures of supervisory authorities which are not legally binding, such as opinions issued by or advice provided by the supervisory authority. Proceedings against a supervisory authority should be brought before the courts of the Member State where the supervisory authority is established and should be conducted in accordance with Member State law. Those courts should exercise full jurisdiction which should include jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before it.

Where a data subject considers that his or her rights under this Directive are infringed, he or she should have the right to mandate a body which aims to protect the rights and interests of data subjects in relation to the protection of their personal data and is constituted according to Member State law to lodge a complaint on his or her behalf with a supervisory authority and to exercise the right to a judicial remedy. The right of representation of data subjects should be without prejudice to Member State procedural law which may require mandatory representation of data subjects by a lawyer, as defined in Council Directive 1977/249 ( 10 ) , before national courts.

Any damage which a person may suffer as a result of processing that infringes the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive should be compensated by the controller or any other authority competent under Member State law. The concept of damage should be broadly interpreted in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice in a manner which fully reflects the objectives of this Directive. This is without prejudice to any claims for damage deriving from the violation of other rules in Union or Member State law. When reference is made to processing that is unlawful or that infringes the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive it also covers processing that infringes implementing acts adopted pursuant to this Directive. Data subjects should receive full and effective compensation for the damage that they have suffered.

Penalties should be imposed on any natural or legal person, whether governed by private or public law, who infringes this Directive. Member States should ensure that the penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and should take all measures to implement the penalties.

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission with regard to the adequate level of protection afforded by a third country, a territory or a specified sector within a third country, or an international organisation and the format and procedures for mutual assistance and the arrangements for the exchange of information by electronic means between supervisory authorities, and between supervisory authorities and the Board. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation 2011/182 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 11 ) .

The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of implementing acts on the adequate level of protection afforded by a third country, a territory or a specified sector within a third country, or an international organisation and on the format and procedures for mutual assistance and the arrangements for the exchange of information by electronic means between supervisory authorities, and between supervisory authorities and the Board, given that those acts are of a general scope.

The Commission should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts where, in duly justified cases relating to a third country, a territory or a specified sector within a third country, or an international organisation which no longer ensure an adequate level of protection, imperative grounds of urgency so require.

Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data and to ensure the free exchange of personal data by competent authorities within the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives

Specific provisions of acts of the Union adopted in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation which were adopted prior to the date of the adoption of this Directive, regulating the processing of personal data between Member States or the access of designated authorities of Member States to information systems established pursuant to the Treaties, should remain unaffected, such as, for example, the specific provisions concerning the protection of personal data applied pursuant to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA ( 12 ) , or Article 23 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union ( 13 ) . Since Article 8 of the Charter and Article 16 TFEU require that the fundamental right to the protection of personal data be ensured in a consistent manner throughout the Union, the Commission should evaluate the situation with regard to the relationship between this Directive and the acts adopted prior to the date of adoption of this Directive regulating the processing of personal data between Member States or the access of designated authorities of Member States to information systems established pursuant to the Treaties, in order to assess the need for alignment of those specific provisions with this Directive. Where appropriate, the Commission should make proposals with a view to ensuring consistent legal rules relating to the processing of personal data.

In order to ensure a comprehensive and consistent protection of personal data in the Union, international agreements which were concluded by Member States prior to the date of entry into force of this Directive and which comply with the relevant Union law applicable prior to that date should remain in force until amended, replaced or revoked.

Member States should be allowed a period of not more than two years from the date of entry into force of this Directive to transpose it. Processing already under way on that date should be brought into conformity with this Directive within the period of two years after which this Directive enters into force. However, where such processing complies with the Union law applicable prior to the date of entry into force of this Directive, the requirements of this Directive concerning the prior consultation of the supervisory authority should not apply to the processing operations already under way on that date given that those requirements, by their very nature, are to be met prior to the processing. Where Member States use the longer implementation period expiring seven years after the date of entry into force of this Directive for meeting the logging obligations for automated processing systems set up prior to that date, the controller or the processor should have in place effective methods for demonstrating the lawfulness of the data processing, for enabling self-monitoring and for ensuring data integrity and data security, such as logs or other forms of records.

This Directive is without prejudice to the rules on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography as laid down in Directive 2011/93 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 14 ) .

Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA should therefore be repealed.

In accordance with Article 6 a of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, the United Kingdom and Ireland are not bound by the rules laid down in this Directive which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU where the United Kingdom and Ireland are not bound by the rules governing the forms of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or police cooperation which require compliance with the provisions laid down on the basis of Article 16 TFEU.

In accordance with Articles 2 and 2 a of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not bound by the rules laid down in this Directive or subject to their application which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU. Given that this Directive builds upon the Schengen acquis , under Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, Denmark, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, is to decide within six months after adoption of this Directive whether it will implement it in its national law.

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Directive constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis , as provided for by the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis ( 15 ) .

As regards Switzerland, this Directive constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis , as provided for by the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the association of the Swiss Confederation with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis ( 16 ) .

As regards Liechtenstein, this Directive constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis , as provided for by the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis ( 17 ) .

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the TFEU, in particular the right to respect for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Limitations placed on those rights are in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter as they are necessary to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents, Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition measures. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation 2001/45 and delivered an opinion on 7 March 2012 ( 18 ) .

This Directive should not preclude Member States from implementing the exercise of the rights of data subjects on information, access to and rectification or erasure of personal data and restriction of processing in the course of criminal proceedings, and their possible restrictions thereto, in national rules on criminal procedure,