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.

Author: Malar Mooguk
Country: Lithuania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 25 August 2012
Pages: 363
PDF File Size: 5.70 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.74 Mb
ISBN: 170-6-56687-698-9
Downloads: 9642
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Molkree

Widespread market assumption that data localisation is required is likely to be an obstacle to innovations based on the multiple-location blockchain approach.

Two thirds of respondents to the public consultation said that they had knowledge of the existence of data localisation restrictions. This discretion is constrained by i the Treaty provisions on the free movement of services and the freedom of establishment; ii relevant EU secondary legislation, notably the e-Commerce Directive and the Services Directive and iii the Commission’s actions to ensure the effective implementation of the Treaty provisions and the legislation, notably through infringement proceedings.

One IT service provider specifically mentioned this in a written answer to the public consultation: It could exchange experience and good practice regarding the removal of data localisation requirements and the cooperation of competent authorities for the purpose of ensuring data availability for regulatory control purposes as well as give opinions on, and develop model contracts or guidelines facilitating data availability.

Under this Option, in principle all data localisation restrictions for reasons other than protecting public security would be considered unjustified or disproportionate restrictions. Regulatory archifregeling supervisory authorities or other sector-level institutions can also do this.

The following figures extracted archiefregelign the study’s analysis show that the ‘simple’ case users — representing typically smaller business users such as start-ups or SMEs — relatively face the highest portability costs: 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. The baseline scenario in the area of security of data processing entails relying on the NIS Directive and related instruments to provide a benchmark for a common level of security of data storage and processing.

Option 2 could indirectly foster, through making switching easier, the growth and the take-up rate of cloud services in Europe. This variety and the potential delays in judicial cooperation, likely generate uncertainty and lack of aarchiefregeling as to whether a specific including unforeseen data availability need could be fulfilled.


Archifregeling principle, MS cooperation, comitology, awareness raising. Finally, as evidenced by multiple press reactions to the Digital Single Archiefreeling Mid-Term Review 91 an archiefreggeling under Option 1 could be seen as a negative appreciation of the Commission’s promised actions under the Digital Single Market strategy.

This means that it is not allowed to the employed person, without consultation of the employer, to take the data away on departure. This example shows that portability costs may become prohibitive, especially for smaller business users, because they can amount to higher than the yearly runtime cost of the service itself. The speed with which the market is embracing new technologies is a strong reason to remove immediately the remaining barriers to the movement of data within the EU and archiffregeling ensuring effective and efficient functioning of data storage and processing, which is at the fundament of any data economy.

Even without a formal requirement, it is clear from these conversations that entities believe that regulators strongly disfavour or in practice prohibit storing data outside of their home country. However, I consider them as archive documents. As for the social impacts of this option, the assessment is the same as for the preceding options.

Apart from the issues of continued market distortion, and leaving SMEs and start-ups in a weaker position, there are no social impacts of this option, although certain negative regional policy effects of localisation can be quite important on a local level, such as the lack of scaled investments because of fragmented service provision. This limits the options of some companies to less efficient data centre solutions.

The European Parliament is also a strong supporter of free flow of data: The actual security levels of data storage and processing in the EU would be maintained or even improved compared to Option 2, because the same EU actions on security of data storage and processing would still be provided for under Sub-option 2a, only on a different legal basis, making use of other cyber security initiatives and the NIS Directive.

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

During the evidence gathering process, this insight archefregeling frequently confirmed by other stakeholders, with no opposite views voiced. Enhancing legal certainty on applicable security requirements.

According to the ‘institutional cost estimation’ tool used for the European Electronic Communications Code, this would result in an annual cost of EUR High level EU principles could encourage industry-wide initiatives.

As the cross-border element is obviously a fundamental aspect of this problem, the initiative should be supranational in nature and cannot be tackled at Member State-level.


More transparency will remove legal uncertainty, especially regarding hidden costs which are not mentioned in the contract.

Therefore, the proposal underlying this IA deviates from the classical situation in the sense that it is not only directed at present problems but also at preventing future ones and creating the right archirfregeling for the EU to fully grasp the benefits of the data economy.

Together with the GDPR, the initiative would put in place a comprehensive and consistent EU framework enabling free movement of data in the EU single market as well as movement of data between data cloud service providers and in-house IT systems.

In direct termsOption 2 would xrchiefregeling a positive impact on social issues in terms of employment. Detailed legislative initiative to ensure trustworthy free flow of data across borders and facilitate switching and porting data between providers and IT systems.

Vendor lock-in actions by cloud service providers constitute a form of data localisation restrictions imposed by the private sector, targeting more specifically data mobility archiefreeling IT-systems instead of data mobility across borders in the EU. Certainty for the future: 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.

It is likely that such existing instruments will not establish specific security benchmarks for cloud services, as their necessary purpose is to create a generic framework.

Archiefregeliny different group of stakeholders also provide more in-depth views on why 20009 would prefer a legislative approach. However, all options would include notification and review process, including the baseline option.

EUR-Lex – SC – EN – EUR-Lex

This is echoed also by participants from the 18 May workshop on cloud switching 84which included representatives of the cloud industry and their business customers.

The demand for public cloud is forecast to grow by Option 2 would have a positive impact on the environment, since data service providers and organisations using in-house data storage or processing IT systems would receive concrete benefits. Environmental and social impacts. Figure 7 — Changes in NPV across stakeholders after the removal of data localisation restrictions.