DIU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 36: Orientering om regeringens besvarelse af Kommissionens offentlige høring vedr. delegeret restakt om art. 40 (DSA) om forskeradgang, fra ministeren for digitalisering

Udvalget for Digitalisering og It 2024-25
DIU Alm.del Bilag 36
Offentligt

Case no.

2024 - 3549

Doc no.

111513

Date

10-12-2024

Annex to the written response of Denmark to the draft of The Delegated

Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act

In the following, technical comments to specific sections of the delegated regulation are pre-

sented.

Article 7, para 1 og 2

Pursuant to Article 7, para. 1, the Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) to which the data access

application has been submitted, shall within 5 working days from the receipt of the applica-

tion confirm to the principal researcher, that the application contains the information and

supporting documentation listed in Article 8, or indicate if this is not the case.

It is not clear to us how thorough the assessment of the DSC receiving the application should

be. Is it merely a superficial check that the applicant has actually submitted some information

and some documentation, which is referred to as the information and documentation listed in

Article 8, or is the DSC receiving the application obliged to conduct a check of the actual con-

tent of the information and the documentation. If the latter is the case, how does the check

of this DSC differ from the check, which should be conducted by the DSC of establishment, cf.

to Article 8, which speaks of an obligation for the DSC of establishment to

verify

the submit-

ted information and documentation?

Our immediate view would be that the check performed by the DSC of establishment is far

more thorough than that of the receiving DSC. However, in recital 8 it says that:

“…the Digital

Services Coordinator to which the data access application was submitted, should verify that

the data access application includes the relevant information and supporting documentation.”

I. e. in recital the wording “verify” is applied to the receiving DSC whereas the word “verify” is

used about the DSC of establishment in Article 8.

Even if the check carried out by the DSC receiving the application is rather formal and superfi-

cial, 5 working days is a very short deadline, which can prove impossible to meet especially if

the DSC receives many applications within a few days.

Since it is not clear how thorough the assessment of the DSC receiving the application should

be, it is not possible to assess whether the deadline in Article 7, para 1, is realistic. It is how-

ever important that the deadline is proportional to the size of the obligations.

DIU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 36: Orientering om regeringens besvarelse af Kommissionens offentlige høring vedr. delegeret restakt om art. 40 (DSA) om forskeradgang, fra ministeren for digitalisering

Moreover, we are unsure whether the DSC´s “confirmation

that the application contains the

information and supporting documentation listed in Article 8”

according to Article 7, para 1,

corresponds to

“the initial assessment”

referred to in DSA, Article 40, para 9. We strongly ad-

vice that this will be clarified within the text.

If that is

not

the case, we have to stress the importance of clarifying the obligation to perform

an initial assessment. In the absence of such clarity it is not possible for DSC´s to make sure

that they have the right competencies and sufficient resources to perform their tasks in ac-

cordance with Article 40, para 9.

Article 12, para 6

We believe it should read “Digital Services Coordinator of establishment” in Article 12, para 6,

as is the reading in Article 12, para 1 to 5.

Article 14, para 1

Should it not read “Digital Services Coordinator of establishment” in Article 14, para 1, as the

provision has to do with “reasoned request” which are only formulated

by DSCs of establish-

ment.

Article 14, para 3, point a

We suggest having a definition of “financial and personal ties” in the delegated act or a refer-

ence to a definition in another legal act, if that applies.

If there is no such definition, and a definition is inserted in Article 2, it should be considered,

whether indirect ties

–

as well as direct ties (financial and personal)

–

should disqualify an ex-

pert.

Article 9, para 3

In Article 9, para 3, it reads that Digital Services Coordinators of establishment shall consult

the relevant supervisory authorities in questions related to GDPR. We suggest to make a ref-

erence to “Digital Services Coordinators of establishment” in the corresponding recital 17 in-

stead of “Digital Services Coordinators” in general.

Recital 19

We suggest that the delegated act determines the exact structure of the reasoned requests.

Recital 23 and 24

We believe that in recital 23 and 24 the correct wording should be “Digital Services Coordina-

tors of establishment” instead of “Digital Services Coordinators” as the corresponding Article

14 refers to only “Digital Services Coordinators of establishment.”