been published in the so-called Archiefregeling. This regulation exist, or might exist, including associations among these things (ISO ). (Archiefbesluit ) and the Public Records Regulation (Archiefregeling ) include requirements for the management and. retention. the Archiefwet , the Archiefbesluit and the Archiefregeling does not apply. That is important to notice because these laws state.
|Published (Last):||15 December 2006|
|PDF File Size:||17.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.92 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
Unlocking this potential requires action, in the short term, on the following issues: Accordingly, Sub-option 2a may lead to less directly positive economic result than Option 2, because of a more modest approach to mitigating market dynamics leading to ‘self-imposed localisation’. The following impact analysis is based on the results of the public consultation, the structured dialogues with the Member States and other stakeholders, studies funded by the European Commission, several analytical tools developed by the European Commission 63 and publicly available information.
For instance, company laws can require local storage of certain corporate information and documents e. Instead, as argued further below in this section, a majority of different categories of stakeholders has called for a legislative approach to confront the problem.
Apart from the Treaty, different potentially relevant provisions can be found in, among others, the Services Directive, the E-Commerce Directive and the Transparency Directive. Therefore, the reader is referred to section 6.
As indicated above in the textbox on page 8, this type of lack of trust is largely unfounded as evidence suggests that data stored in large-scale data centres is actually safer than data stored on-site. One of the main causes for this trend is presumably the attempt by regulators to transfer the given means of control and reassurance tailored for the industrial age to the digital age.
According to the OECD, computer services including data storage and data processing services are sensitive to restrictive regulations affecting trade and imposing an additional time burden on companies. Member States are able to reduce the number and range of their own data localisation restrictions, but are likely to do so to different extents, at different rates and in different ways or not at all.
The upstream market structure cloud service providers would be distorted by the survival of less efficient companies exploiting localisation restrictions in order to be able to maintain higher prices. Legal uncertainty also originates from the manifold and diverse sector-specific guidelines and administrative practices. This would create a more efficient and environmentally friendly data centre sector and effectively address the problem of legal uncertainty as to the existence and scope of application of data localisation restrictions and the extent to which the existing EU rules mandate the free movement of data.
This positive effect is attained by explicitly avoiding any overlap with existing requirements, while at the same time providing reassurance to businesses about the continued applicability, also across borders in the EU and under outsourcing arrangements, of the security provisions under which they already operate. As one respondent noted: Several respondents maintained that if scaling across Europe is more expensive than scaling globally, start-ups will continue moving to other parts of the world to scale there.
Limiting the intervention to specific sectors would also ignore the evolving nature of the problem and the need to offer an innovation-friendly legal environment in an expanding data economy. With a minimum level of interoperability ensured, migration processes would need less processing power and thus have less of an environmental imprint. The four specific objectives identified are closely linked to the problems described in section 2.
This can help cloud customers plan their costs related to migration.
2.f. Appendix F. Public records Act. – Research Data Wiki – Collaboration Infrastructure Wiki
New digital technologies, such as cloud computing, big data, artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things IoTare transforming our society and economy and are opening up new opportunities for European citizens, businesses and public administrations. In practice, notifications under the Transparency Directive would be examined and – although unlikely – infringement proceedings could be launched on a case by case basis where strong evidence can be gathered to show that the restriction has a direct and significant impact on the cross-border provision of a service.
Option 1 would not take away this legal uncertainty, as it proposes to retain the current patchwork of EU-law applicable to data localisation. This would lead to an unequal regulatory landscape and an unequal level playing field for businesses in the EU.
These technologies are designed to gather, manage, distribute and analyse data in order to maximise efficiency, enable economies of scale and develop new services. For more information on the magnitude of cross-border data flows see Annex 9.
EUR-Lex – SC – EN – EUR-Lex
Since, as explained in section 6. Under Option 2, market participants would be required to give insights in the processes, technical requirements, timeframes and charges that apply in the situation of switching providers.
Therefore, potentially negative environmental and social impacts of cyber-attacks, as described in 6. It seems unlikely that a no-action scenario will help to improve the security of the data processing. Data availability for regulatory control by Member State authorities. Making use of the Better Regulation toolbox 23the Commission services conducted an extensive analysis of the core problem and its drivers. Based on the evidence gathered, from the data service cloud user perspective, different degrees of impacts caused by obstacles to switching and porting data can be envisaged.
Public and private entities in Europe often assume that they are not allowed to store or process data across borders, while there is actually no restriction in place. The DSM strategy set very clear expectations for presentation in on an initiative… “. However, as introduced above, stakeholders from both the public and private sectors have called for a new legislative instrument. In particular, cloud service providers have to i build local data centres even if arfhiefregeling provider archkefregeling serve its users from a data centre located elsewhere or ii choose less ideal locations for planned data centre infrastructures or iii outsource processing activities to more expensive local service providers.
A software as a service provider specialising in integrated solutions for universities has reported that some of their partner universities “believe” that laws applicable to them force them to keep data in their respective countries. Therefore, the negative indirect effect from the status quo is linked to the assumption that companies especially SMEs that are affected by data localisation restrictions may choose not to store data in the cloud. It envisages the development of common standards, but this could also be done by industry.
Most of these sources provide qualitative rather than quantitative insights. In particular, it would promote the freedom of information Article 11since enhancing transparency is an important element of the initiative. Some cloud customers have also reported instances where Cloud Services Providers offer much lower prices for the above cost categories when importing the data on their own systems than when they have to export it to a new destination.
However, this provision cannot be invoked by businesses or public sector entities in B2B data porting scenarios involving personal data, e. Inefficiencies in the data centres sector.
From the strict prior authorisation requirement will be replaced by a certification requirement. Another possible archiefregelinng social impact could incur on the freedom to conduct a business provided for by Article 16 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, since it would result in a growing number of limitations constraining i business choices regarding the location of data storage or processing infrastructures and ii the opportunities for cloud service providers to serve customers in other Member States.
Under this Option, in principle all data localisation restrictions for reasons other than protecting public ardhiefregeling would be considered unjustified or disproportionate archiefreveling. National governments could also take independent action to support data portability in cloud switching, creating fragmentation in the EU cloud market. The study archiefrfgeling that data localisation has an impact predominantly on the data centres that cloud providers build in addition to their first facilities: Loss of operational efficiency.
In particular for start-ups this would undermine cross-border scaling up substantially.