24 Amendments of Tiemo WÖLKEN related to 2020/2217(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the EU approach to digitalisation should be human-centred, value-oriented and based on the concept of the social market economy; underlines that choosing a third patits own approach to digitalisation should not mean that the EU becomes protectionist; stresses, therefore, that every non-EU player should still be welcome to operate in the single European data space as long as they meet the EU’s ethical, technological, privacy and security standards, security and particularly ethical standards, such as those on transparency, accountability, traceability, non-discrimination, sustainability, social responsibility and good governance;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the EU approach to digitalisation should be human-centred, value-oriented and based on the concept of the social market economy; underlines that choosing a third patits own approach to digitalisation should not mean that the EU becomes protectionist; stresses, therefore, that every non-EU player should still be welcome to operate in the single European data space as long as they meet the EU’s ethical, technological, privacy and security standards, security and particularly ethical standards, such as those on transparency, accountability, traceability, non-discrimination, sustainability, social responsibility and good governance;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the new strategy should be implemented by means of a principle-based and innovation-friendly EU legal framework, which should be proportionate and, while safeguarding the best interests of EU citizens, avoid unnecessary administrative burdens for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups, and should be combined with concrete measures, guidance, private- public codes of conduct and programmes, strong investments, and, if necessary, new sector-specific laws;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the new strategy should be implemented by means of a principle-based and innovation-friendly EU legal framework, which should be proportionate and, while safeguarding the best interests of EU citizens, avoid unnecessary administrative burdens for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups, and should be combined with concrete measures, guidance, private- public codes of conduct and programmes, strong investments, and, if necessary, new sector-specific laws;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the key importance of fostering access to data for EU businesses, and their competitiveness at the global level, especially for SMEs and start-ups; considers that voluntary data sharing between businesses based on fair and transparent contractual arrangements, triggered by incentives in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, would help to achieve this goalwould help to achieve this goal; notes, in this regard, that a solid legislative framework is important to ensure trust and encourage businesses to make data available to others, particularly across borders;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the key importance of fostering access to data for EU businesses, and their competitiveness at the global level, especially for SMEs and start-ups; considers that voluntary data sharing between businesses based on fair and transparent contractual arrangements, triggered by incentives in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, would help to achieve this goalwould help to achieve this goal; notes, in this regard, that a solid legislative framework is important to ensure trust and encourage businesses to make data available to others, particularly across borders;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. States that mutually beneficial, fair, simple, intelligible, secure, interoperable and affordable voluntary data sharing agreements between companies from the same supply chain and different sectors, that either monetise the participation of data providers or enable ‘give and take’ schemes, will further accelerate the development of the EU data economy;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. States that mutually beneficial, fair, simple, intelligible, secure, interoperable and affordable voluntary data sharing agreements between companies from the same supply chain and different sectors, that either monetise the participation of data providers or enable ‘give and take’ schemes, will further accelerate the development of the EU data economy;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of defining fair contractual conditions with the aim of addressing imbalances in market power and between the concerned parties; underlines that a single European data space will require companies to be allowed to closely cooperate with each other, and therefore considers that safe harbours and block exemptions on cooperation for data sharing and pooling, as well as more guidance for businesses on competition law matters from the Commission, are needed;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of defining fair contractual conditions with the aim of addressing imbalances in market power and between the concerned parties; underlines that a single European data space will require companies to be allowed to closely cooperate with each other, and therefore considers that safe harbours and block exemptions on cooperation for data sharing and pooling, as well as more guidance for businesses on competition law matters from the Commission, are needed;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recommends further strengthening interoperability and establishing consensus-based, industry-led common cross-sector standards in order to guarantee that the movement of data between different machines and entities can take place in an innovative manner without leaving any gaps in that regard to be filled by the economic entities with significant market power that operate across sectors; highlights the importance of open, non- proprietary standards to ensure a high degree of interoperability;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recommends further strengthening interoperability and establishing consensus-based, industry-led common cross-sector standards in order to guarantee that the movement of data between different machines and entities can take place in an innovative manner without leaving any gaps in that regard to be filled by the economic entities with significant market power that operate across sectors; highlights the importance of open, non- proprietary standards to ensure a high degree of interoperability;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Believes that open source technology promotes the mutually beneficial collaboration between businesses while guaranteeing transparency and public scrutiny, thereby providing the high level of trust needed to engage in data sharing; further notes that open source technology can play a significant role in ensuring Europe’s digital sovereignty; considers therefore that the uptake of open source technology should be actively encouraged and promoted by the Commission, particularly through effective permanent funding facilities;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Believes that open source technology promotes the mutually beneficial collaboration between businesses while guaranteeing transparency and public scrutiny, thereby providing the high level of trust needed to engage in data sharing; further notes that open source technology can play a significant role in ensuring Europe’s digital sovereignty; considers therefore that the uptake of open source technology should be actively encouraged and promoted by the Commission, particularly through effective permanent funding facilities;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Declares that a distinction between the legal regimes concerning personal and non-personal data is essential, as not sharing any commercial datasets is often the only option for businesses due to the complexity of the existing rules and the great legal uncertainty as to whether personal data is sufficiently depersonalised; notes that this distinction may be difficult to draw in practice given the existence of mixed data, for which specific rules and approaches should be introducedexisting Union legislation mandates that, where non-personal data and personal data are inextricably linked, data protection rights and obligations apply in full to the whole mixed dataset, regardless of the comparative amount of personal data in relation to non-personal data; believes that models that focus on anonymisation, which requires a clear legal base and a list of criteria, and other technical ways of ensuring privacy must be encouraged, such as the shift from the sharing of data to the sharing of computation, application programming interfaces (APIs), synthetic data and data sandboxes;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Declares that a distinction between the legal regimes concerning personal and non-personal data is essential, as not sharing any commercial datasets is often the only option for businesses due to the complexity of the existing rules and the great legal uncertainty as to whether personal data is sufficiently depersonalised; notes that this distinction may be difficult to draw in practice given the existence of mixed data, for which specific rules and approaches should be introducedexisting Union legislation mandates that, where non-personal data and personal data are inextricably linked, data protection rights and obligations apply in full to the whole mixed dataset, regardless of the comparative amount of personal data in relation to non-personal data; believes that models that focus on anonymisation, which requires a clear legal base and a list of criteria, and other technical ways of ensuring privacy must be encouraged, such as the shift from the sharing of data to the sharing of computation, application programming interfaces (APIs), synthetic data and data sandboxes;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the belief thatCalls for an impact assessment to be conducted by the Commission on whether the data-driven digital economy does not requires any major changes to the existing IPR framework and thus notes that the Commission should carefully assess what legal adjustments are really necessaryor adjustments to the existing IPR legal framework; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s intention to revise the Database Directive and clarify the application of the Trade Secrets Directive;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the belief thatCalls for an impact assessment to be conducted by the Commission on whether the data-driven digital economy does not requires any major changes to the existing IPR framework and thus notes that the Commission should carefully assess what legal adjustments are really necessaryor adjustments to the existing IPR legal framework; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s intention to revise the Database Directive and clarify the application of the Trade Secrets Directive;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to assess to what extentake measures to ensure that the application of foreign jurisdictions’ legislation, such as the US CLOUD Act, might lead to legal uncertainty and disadvantages for Union residents and businesses and whether any action is neededdoes not undermine the fundamental rights of Union citizens or lead to legal uncertainty and disadvantages for Union businesses; points out recent jurisprudence by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard.
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to assess to what extentake measures to ensure that the application of foreign jurisdictions’ legislation, such as the US CLOUD Act, might lead to legal uncertainty and disadvantages for Union residents and businesses and whether any action is neededdoes not undermine the fundamental rights of Union citizens or lead to legal uncertainty and disadvantages for Union businesses; points out recent jurisprudence by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard.