KM_C554e-20171220093742
Dieses Dokument ist Teil der Anfrage „Akte zum Transparenzregister“
Von: Merzbach, Sarah (VII A 3a) Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Februar201711:16 An: Referat VIIA3a Betreff: WG: VS-NfD: ALMD - Legal Service opinion Anlagen: ST-15655-2016-INIT-EN.PDF Bitte zSa VII A 3a - WK 5024/16/10003 :001 Danke SJM Von: Merzbach, Sarah (VII A 3a) Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Dezember 2016 12:42 An: Hermes Dr., Judith (VII A 3a) Ce: Lehnardt Dr., Chia (VII A 3a) Betreff: VS-NfD: ALMD - Legal Service opinioQ Anbei zK das Gutachten vom Rechtsdienst des Rates zur Ausgestaltung des Registerzugangs, das sich sehr kritisch mit dem KOM-Vorschlag auseinandersetzt und letztlich noch nicht einmal die 4. Geldwäsche-RL für datenschutzkonform hält (s. dazu Ziffer 49 inkl. Fn. 13}. Zusammenfassung auf Seite 16. Von: DGG Financial Services - AMLD L.J.!.."""'-'-""'- 16. Dezember 2016 1 .sk'; .sk'; .sk'; R'"trl'l•ff· ALMD- Legal Service opinion Dear colleagues, Piease be informed that the Opinion of the Legal Services as regards access to beneficial ownership information is available from the Extranet as doc. no. 15655/16.
-- -- - __""_ Council of the European Union 2. Thc proposal aims at amendmg, mteraha, An1cles30 and 31 of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 Brussels, 16 December 2016 (OR. en) and to insen a new Article Ia ofDirectivc 20091101/EC, which, taken together, would allow the disclosurc to the gcneral public of information on thc beneficial ownership of corporate 15655/16 and legal entities and on for-profit trusts and on arrangements similar to such trusts. The lnterinstitutional File: 2016/0208 (COD) proposal also would introduce a rcquirement to provide beneficial owncrship inforrnation on LIMITE other types of trusts to any person that could demoostrate a Iegitimale interest in accessing JUR 612 ECOFIN 1194 such information. DROIPEN 221 CRIMORG 185 COTER 138 3. During the discussions in the Council's preparatory bodies of this pan of the proposal, CODEC 1912 questions were raised as to the compatibility ofthe proposed widening ofthc scope of the lA 142 DAPIX 233 beneficial ownership infonnation access with the data protcction regime in the EU, as weil as DATAPROTECT 110 FISC 238 to the legal soundness ofthe proposed approach consisting in the amendment ofDirective ' (EU) 2015/849 and ofDirective 20091101/EC to this effcct. OPINION OFTHELEGAL SERVICE Subject: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the 4. At the meeting of the Council (ECOFIN) o f 8 November 2016, the Council Legal Service use of the financial system for the purposes of money lauodering or ("CLS") addressed in general terms the need to establish the proportionality between the terrorist financing and amending Directive 2009/101/EC interference with the fundamental right to privacy and the Iegitimaie goal of fighting money - compatibility of the provisions on public access to beneficial ownership information with the applicable data protection guarantees lauodering and terrorist financing. 5. Dclivered at the rcquest of the Financial Attaches Working Party of 17 November 2016, the I. INTROOUCTlON present opinion reflects and funher develops this intervention. I. On 5 July 2016, the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on thc prevention of the use of the financ1al system for the purposes of money _, lauodering or terrorist financing and amendingDirective 20091101/EC ("the proposal") This document contains legal advice protected under Anicle 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, and not released by the Council ofthe European Union to the public. The Council reserves all its rights in law as regards any unauthorised publication. COM(20 16) 450 final. 15655116 I 15655/16 2 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN
12. Thus, according to recitals (22) to (24), "public access by way of compulsory disclosure of II. LEGALAND FACfUAL BACKGROUND certain infomlation on the beneficial ownership of companies provides addilional guarantees 10 third parlies wishing to do business witlr those companies ... Public access also allows a) The proposal greater scrutiny of information by civil society, including by the press or civil society 6. The proposal aims at amending Directive 2015/849 (the "4th AMLD") and Directive Organisations, and contributes to preserving trustln the integrity of business transactions and 2009/10 1/EC. of the financial system. lt can contribute to combating the misuse of legal enlilies and legal arrangements both by helping im•estigations and through reputational effocts, given that 7. The 4th AMLD is based on Article 114 TFEU and aims at preventing the use of the Union's anyone who could enter into transactions with them is aware of the idenlity of the beneficial financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing (Article I ( I )). o1vners. lt also facilitates the timely and efficient availability of informalIon for financial 8. Directive 2009/101/EC is based on Article 50 TFEU and provides that the "coordination of institutions as weil as authorities, including authorities of third cowllries, involved in thefight national provisions concerning disclosure, [... ] of companies limited by sirares or othenvise against these of!ences. Confidence infinancial marketsfrom Investors and the general public having limited liability is of special imparlance for the purpase of protecting the interests of depends in /arge part on the existence of an accurate disclosure regime that provides third part/es" (recital (2) thereof). transparency in the beneficial ownership and comrol structures of companies." 9. The proposal requires Member States to ensure access to beneftcial ownership Information. 13. As regards the secondcategory, i.e., trusts other than business trusts, only persons or The initial Commission proposal purports to establish a twofold reg1me, distinguishing Organisations that can demonstrate a "legitimste interest" would be granted access to between corporate and other legal entities, "business" trusts and entities similar to them, on beneficial ownership Information, consisting of the name, the month and year of birth, the the one hand, and any other trusts, on the other hand. nationality and the country of residence ofthe beneficial owner. 10. ln respect o f t h e.first category, i.e., corporate and other legal entities, "business" trusts and 14. For this purpose. recital (35) to the proposal provides guidance on the notion of "legitimate entities similar to them, Member States would be obliged to grant public access to the name, interest" as follows "money laundering, terrorist financing and tlre associated predicate the month and the year of birth, the nationality and the country of residence of the beneficial offonces should be justified by readily amifable means, such as statutes or mission stateme/11 owner as weil the nature and extent of the beneficial interest held. of non-gbvernmental organisations, or on the basis of demonstrated previous activities relevant to thefight againsI money laundering and terror1st financing or associated predicate I I. This obligation to grant public access is justified by a series of considerations related to of!ences, or a proven track record of surveys or actions in that field". corporate transparency. 15. During the discussions in the financial attaches Working Party, the Presidency issued ajirst compromise, which transferred all public access provisions to the part ofthe proposal amending the 4th AMLD, without changing in substance the justifications in the corresponding recitals. 3 Document 13872/16 of 28 October 2016. 15655/16 3 15655/16 4 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN
16. Subscquently, the Pres1dency put forward a second compromise solution, whereby the gencral 19 Art1cle 8 of the Charter, on protecuon of personal data, reads as follows: public access is abandoned in favour of a more restrictive disclosurc bascd on demonstrating a "I. Everyone Iias the rigl111o the protection of personal data conceming him ur h�r. "lcgitimate mterest". This proposal would amend only the 4th AMLD, thus implying that the JUStification for such access is anti-money lauodering only, and not anymore corporate 2. Such data must be pracessed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent uf transparency. the person concerned or some other Iegitimale basis laid down by lmv. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected conceming him or her. and the right to have it 17 The rccitals justitying thc decision to requirc public access were redraf\ed in order to pivot rectified." around the notion of"legitimate intercst." The notion of"legitimatc interest" itself is referred to in a less specific manncr by comparison with the drafting initially proposed by thc 20. Directive 95/46 EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal Commission (see above paragraph 14) and makes use of open-ended terms.4 Moreover, recital data and on the free movement of such data, lays down provisions conceming the processing (22) includes an explicit possibility for Member States to widcn the scope of the access of personal data with a view to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural beyond the circle of those with legillmate interest. � persons, and in particular their rights to privacy. Under that Directive, subject to the exceptions permmed under Article 13, all processing of personal data must comply, first, with b) Applicable datn protection provisions the principles relating to data quality set out in Articlc 6 thereof and, second. with one of the 18. Article 7 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union ("the Charter"), on critcria for making data processing Iegitimale listed in Article 7.6 respect for private and family life, states that "[e]vetyone has the riglu to respect for his or 21. According to settled case-law, those provisions, in so far as they govem the processing of her pnvate and famtly life. home and communications. •· personal data liable to infi"inge fundamental frccdoms, must necessarily be interprctcd in the ' light of fundamcntal rights, in particular in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. "The Iegitimare interest with respect to money laundering, terroristfinancing and the associated predicate offences should be at least given to those who demonsrrated previous relemnt activities related to thefight against money laundering and terroristfinancing or associated predicate offences, or a proven track record of actions in thatfield" { document 14884/16 of25 November 2016, recital (35)). "Member States may decide to opt for such wider access in their national legislation in case rhey choose 10 do so h01•/ng regard to the utmost importance to retain balance and proportionalily in the aim of transporency and the aim of protection of fundamental rights Judgment in Osterreichischer Rundfunk, C-465100, C-138/0 I and C-139/0 I, of the individuals especial/y the right to pril'acy" "Member States may allowfor awider EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 65, and judgment in Google Spoin and Google, C-131/12, access to the informarion held in the register referred to in the paragraph Ja in accordance EU:C:2014:317, paragraph 71. with their national lmv." (document 14884/16 of25 November 2016, recital {22) and Judgment in Google Spoin and Google, above, paragraph 74, and judgment 111 YS and Article I (I 0)). others, C-141112 and C-372/12, EU:C:2014:2081, paragraph 54. 15655116 5 15655/16 6 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN
25. With regard to judicial review where interferences with fundamental rights are at issue, the IJI. LEGAL ANALYSIS extent ofthe EU legislature's discretion may prove to be limited, depending on a number of Preliminary remnrks factors, including, in particular, the area concerned, the nature ofthe right at issue guaranteed by the Charter, the nature and seriousness ofthe interference and the object pursued by the 22. This opinion will examine the legal feasibility of granting access to beneficial ownership interference. ln view ofthe important roJe played by the protection ofpersonal data in the information under the modalities described in points 9 to 17, above. light ofthe fundamental right to respect for private life and the extent and seriousness ofthe interference with that right, the EU legislature's discretion is reduced, with the result that its 23. The divulgation ofpersonal data ofindividuals (i.e., beneficial ownership) entails an judicial review should be strict. 9 interference in the fundamental rights ofrespect to private and life and ofprotection of personal data enshrined,respectively, in Articles 7 and 8 ofthe Charter. 26. In particular the C o u r t has ruled that "the institutions are obliged to balance, before disclosing information relating to a natural person, the Europeon Union 's interesr in guaranteeing the 24. Article 52(I ) ofthe Charter lays down that interferences may however be imposed on the transparency of irs actions and the infringement of the rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of exercise ofthose rights. In order to be lawful,any such Iimitation must be justified in the Charter. No automatic priority ca11 be conferred on the objective of transparency over the accordance with three criteria: "10 right to protection of personal data [... ]. even if impartant economic interests are at stake. (i) the interference must be provided by law and respect the essence ofrights and 27. Accordingly, the legislator should be able to demonstrate that it has explored alternative ways freedoms; to attain the objectives pursued which would be less restrictive ofthe rights ofthe individuals (ii) the interference must pursue a Iegitimale aim; and concerned. (iii) the interference must prove proportionale and therefore be adequate to the 28. In the light ofthe above, this opinion will thus examine successively the two categories of pursued aim and necessary to attain it, without going beyond such necessity. 8 justifications that have been envisaged for this measure,with a view to assess - on the basis of the criteria set above · whether they are ablc to warrant the restriction to data protection entailed by an unlimited access to ofthe general public or, ifthis proves disproportionate, an access I imited by the condition of having a Iegitimale interest. Judgment in Digital Righrs /reland, C-293/12 and C-594112, EU:C:2014:238, paragraphs 46-48 and case-law cited. 10 Judgment in Schecke, above, paragraph 85. See opinion of the Legal Service of7 February 2013 on the amendment to the Commission proposal COM(20 II) 628 final/2 for a Regulation ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council on the financing, management Judgment in Osterreichischer Rundfunk, above, paragraphs 76 and 77; and judgment in Volker and monitoring ofthe common agricultural policy (hereinafter the "Amended Proposal") und Markus Schecke and Eifert, C-92109 and C-93/09, EU:C:2010:662,paragraphs 50,65 and Compatibility with the Court's judgment in Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, document 74. 6196/13, points 32- 33. 15655116 7 15655/16 8 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN ,
(i) justijication by tlle jight against money laundering and terrorist jinancing 34. The nexus between public access to beneficial owncrship information and efticic:nt anti 29. 1t is assumcd thal the interference on the flmdamcntal rights to privacy and 10 da1a protection, money lauodering enforcement is not established and, in thc absence of relevant studies and that a public access regime on beneficial ownership information of corporate entilies and statistics or even anecdotal evidence, cannot be inferred from common sense. To the contrary, business trusts entaals, would be founded on a legislative act accessable to indivaduals (lhe the values of democracy and the rule of law on which thc Union is founded are generally envisaged Directive) and that, hence, the referred interferences are foreseeable by thcm. interpreted as excluding that law enforcement tasks may bc left to the general public to take care of, only constitutional argans subject to strict judicial control being able to conduct such 30. As regards respect of 1he essence ofthe fundamental rights 10 privacy and data protection, activities. The nccessity o f a n appeal to the gcneral public to lend its support to such functions unlimited access by thc general public to the information on beneficial owners manifestly of public authority canno1 be presumed. constitules a panicularly scrious intcrference with those rights, it may be excessive 10 regard them as adversely affecting their essence. The set of data to be made available 10 thc public 35. in the absence ofany established or credible necessity ofthe measures foreseen, the should be limited, clearly and exhaustively defined, and should be of a general nature. interference entailed by public access would not be proportionale to its declared Iegitimale Moreover, that information relates essentially 10 the status of bencficial owners of businesses aim. 1t is most unlikely that restriction ofthe scope of access to certain categories ofthe and trusts, and concerns the sphere of economic aclivity in which the beneficial owners public would alter this conclusion if the objective pursued is the light againsl money operate lauodering and terrorist financing. 31. Therefore, a rcgime based on Article 114 TFEU and providing for a public access to certain (ii) justijication by considerations ofcorporate transparency beneficial ownership informa1ion of corpora1e entities and "business" trusts on the basis ofthe 36. As per one of the elements ofthe Commission proposal, public access to beneficial ownership need to combat money lauodering and terrorist financing could be deemed to be an information is justified on the grounds of corporate transparency. interference provided by law, respecting the essence of fundamental rights and pursuing a legitimate aim. 37. As in the case examined above, such interference would be deemed 10 be provided by 1he law. 32. The analysis of proportionality deserves however special consideration. 38. As regards the question whether it satisfies an 6bjective of general interest, the Commissaon proposal states a number of Iegitimale aims, notably the protection of third parties wishing to 33. There are no examples in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal showing that the do business with companies, the prcservation of trust in the integrity of business transactions general public is legally empowered, able or willing to combat money laundering. and of the financial system as weil as the confidence in financial markets from investors and the generat public, and granting the govemments and regulators the opportunity to respond quickly to alternative investment techniques • see recitals (22) to (28) to thc proposal. 15655/16 9 15655/16 10 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN
39. The proportionality of the measure must be assessed in terms of its adequacy and necessity. ln 42. On the basis of the above reasoning, unlimited access by the general public to information on this sense, general access by the public to information on beneficial ownership of all corporate beneficial ownership of all corporate and other legal entities and business trusts is and other legal entities and business trusts is inadequate and beyond the criterion of necessity. disproportionate and constitutes an unlawful interference into the fundamental rights to lt consists of an access that is too broad (potentially by every individual wishing to have privacy and to data protection. access to beneficial ownership information of EU wide located corporations) in order to 43. However, it cannot be excluded that, if certain corporate transparency objectives were satisfy company related objectives that are however of relevance for a restricted scope of identified and defined in a more rigorous manner than in the proposal, they could justify a parties. The declared objectives of the proposal could be achieved by means that are less public access limited by certain.objective criteria. cumbersome and intrusive in the fundamental rights to private life and data protection. (iii) access regime including a "legitim��te interest" criterion 40. lndeed, if the aim is to provide "additional guarantees to third parlies wishing to do business with tlrose companies," it would be more appropriate to Iimit the access to beneficial 44. Some of the legal obstacles identified in relation to the approach examined at ii) above could ownership information only to such parties, and not to the public at !arge. Equally, be addressed through the restriction of the potential recipients of the beneficial ownership "preserving rrusr in tlre integrity of business rransactions and of the financial system" as weil information on the basis of an objective criterion. as the "confidence in financial markets" could be ensured by restricting the number of entities 45. The second regime for access established by the Commission proposal concerns "non concemed by this disclosure obligation, e.g. only to companies that are listed or borrow business" trusts and proposes to Iimit the access to beneficial owners' information to capital on the open market. Finally, granting governments and regulators the opportunity to individuals and entities that are in a position to show a "legitimate interest" in having such an respond quickly to alternative investment techniques would require that access is limited to access. The access is given for the purpose of preventing money lauodering and terrorist the said entities, and not extended to the public in general. financing activitics. 41. lncidentally it is noted that the public access to beneficial ownership information under the 46. The Iimitation of access to the benetic1al ownership information to individuals and entities Commission proposal is founded on a confusion between corporate-related aims- as able to show a Iegitimale interest may introduce an element of proportionality as long as explained above- and other aims- notably the prevention of money lauodering and tax control on relevant data would be limited to agents and Stakeholders that can exercise such a avoidance (see respectively recitals 2611 and 28 to the proposal). However, as explained control in a meaningful manner on account of their expertise, professional capacities and above, access by the general public to beneficial ownership information ofall corporate and public recognition. This presupposes, naturally, that the link between the justification and the other legal entities and business trusts as a means to combat money lauodering and tax interest is direct and that the use of the information obtained demonstrably serves the public evasion is manifestly disproportionnie and inadequate. objective in question. II "Afair balance should be saugirr in particular between the genera/ public interesl in corparare rransparency andin the preventio11 ofmoney /aundering and tlre dara subjects' fundamemal rights" (emphasis added). 15655116 II 15655116 12 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN
47 The conclusion m thc abovc paragraph indeed reqUJres an important qualification ln order for a person or an entity may be regarded as having a legitimatc interest to have access to interferences with fundamental rights enshrincd in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter tobe beneficial ownership information only if(a) it is able to demonstratc to the competent national actually limited to what is strictly necessary, EU law must provide itsclfclear and precise authorities its ability and intention to make use ofthis information solely for the bcnetit ofthe rules governing the extent of such an interfcrencc.12 Accordingly, the proposal should contain public intcrest at stake (that has to be precisely defincd) and to do so in a manner causing no a set of objectivc criteria permitting to ascertain unequivocally and with a sufficient degree of disproportionnie harm to the right to privacy and (b) it accepts to bc authorised and controlled accuracy the notion of "Iegitimale interest." Otherwise, the divergent application ofth1s by the competent national authorities m the performance of any activity making use of whole notion by each Member State could pul into question the adequacy and neccssity of the or part ofthe mformation thus obtained. measure concemed in relation to the objectives pursued. 51. lf a Iegitimaie interest criterion were defined by reference to thc light against money 48. ln this conncction, and as recalled in point 14 ofthis opinion, the Commission proposal lauodering and terrorist tinancing, both corporate entities and all kinds of trusts could be contains, it its recital (35), guidance on the notion of"legitimate interest." misused in this respect, and there wouldbe no a clear casc for distinguishing between them on thc basis oftheir legal nature and corporatc structure. 49. Howevcr, the guidancc under that recital Iacks clarity and is of a simple indicative nature. As such it does not conslltute a set ofpreci�e and objective criteria to follow when establishing 52. Thus, the same analysis would be valid in rcspect to an access regime based on legitimste whether a Iegitimaie interest is present. A dctinition contaming objective and verifiable interest encompassing not only non business trusts but also corporate entilles and "business" criteria incorporated in the enacting tcrms ofthe proposal would be needcd. ln other words, trusts. the self-declared mission statements oftransparency-oriented (or incidentally anti-money 53. Finally, an cxplicit authorisation given to Mcmbcr Statcs to further widen the scopc ofthe laundering) Organisations cannot be considered enough on their own but have tobe coupled access would be illegal unless it is accompamed by guarantees at EU Ievel. ln cases where a with a proof of independent recognition of the public utility ofthe actions ofthe organisation serious interference with data protection rights is at stake, like in the present onc, it 1s in this tield. 13 necessary to ensure in the empowering EU legislation that Member States comply with the 50 Thus, any detinition ofthis notion should, in order not to be purely rhetorical, contain at least requirements laid down by EU law regarding the protection of personal data, in particular the following set ofrequirements: with Articles 7, 8 and 52 ofthe Charter, thc case -law ofthe Court ofJustice and Directive 95/46/EC, and with national laws implcmenting those requirements.u 54. ln other terms, the Directive should not offer a basis allowing Membcr States to gobeyond what has been found at EU level to be the maximum restriction offundamental rights legally possible, when they draft their national Iransposition rules or other relevant national legislation. 12 Judgment in Digital Rights lreland, above, paragraph 60. 13 1t should be recalled that while the 4th AMLD does refer to "Iegitimaie interest" as a criterion for access to beneficial ownership information, the content of this notion is not defined. Moreover, the public access to beneticial ownership information of corporate and othcr entities was inserted in the text ofthe Directive at an cxtremely late stage and under intense political pressure during the trilogues with the European Parliament. The "legitimate interest" criterion was then devised in response to it, but given the dynamics ofthe negotiation was never properly assessed in terms of its impact, usefulness or adequacy and, therefore, cannot be used as an absolute yardstick in terms ofthe legality ofthe access u reg1me. Judgment in Digital R1gh1s b·eland, above, paragraphs 65-66. 15655116 13 15655/16 14 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN
(iv) obligation to consult the Europenn Data Proteerion Supervisor 55. Similarly to the case that was examined in a recent opinion of the CLS,15 as per the IV. CONCLUSJONS information provided by the Commission it appears that this institution has not formally 57. A public access regime justified by thefigllt against money laundering and terrorist consulted the EDPS when it prepared its legislative proposal, nor does it appear to have used financing would be disproportionate in relation to its declared aim and hence constitute an the possibility to seek advice from the •Article 29" Data Protection Working Party, unlawful interference with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. established under Directive 95/46/EC. 58. A public access regime justified by considerations of corporate transparency is not 56. Under Article 28(2) of Regulation 45/200 I onData Protection by the Union's institutions compatible, as it stands in the Commission proposal, with the fundamental rights to privacy "{wjhen il adopts a /egislatil'e proposa/ relating 10 the prolection ofindividuals' righls and and data protection duc to the Iack of proportionality in relation to its declared aim. freedoms with regard 10 the processing ofpersonal data, the Commission sha/1 consult the Europeon Data Protection Supervisor". In accordance with Regulation 45/200 I , the 59. An access regime incorporating a "legitimate interest" criterion might be compatible with Obligation to consult the EDPS only applies at the time of adoption by the Commission of its the applicable data protection provisions, on the condition that: proposal. However, whilst no specific provision ofUnion law imposes on theUnion the notion of "legitimate interest" is clearly detined and inserted in the enacting part of legislature such an obligation to consult the EDPS, consideration must be given to the fact the act: that the Court may consider consultation of the EDPS an essential procedural requirement, the Iack of which could Iead to the partial or total annulment of the Directive. lt is therefore a direct relationship is established between the actual or potential actions of persons advised that the Council proceeds to such a consultation that would increase the legal with Iegitimaie interest and the effective and verifiable enactment of the specitic public authority of the act and provide input for further legislative work. policy objective justifying a restriction of fundamental rights; wider access at national Ievei should be in accordance with the above requirements and not allow a derogation to the Iimits sei at EU Ievel. 60. The consu/tation to the EDPS constitutes an essential procedural requirement of the envisaged act. ·� Opinion of theLegal Service of6 December 2016 on data protection questions relating to the Commission's proposal for aDirective on certain aspects conceming contracts for the supply of digital content, document 15287116, point 28. 15655116 15 15655116 16 JUR LIMITE EN JUR LIMITE EN