GDPR Model Draft v.1 published

Created by Frank Ingenrieth | Publication News GDPR

Publications tend to remain limited on the determination of academic or practical needs, highlighting the legislator should keep such findings in mind when amending its legislation. The author intends to go beyond the mere determination of needs, by suggesting drafted updates to the GDPR that align with the identified needs and hoped-for opportunities.

Abstract

This Model Draft builds upon and extend existing works. As the author has been working and published on this field recently, and to kick-off the Model Draft, this GDPR Model Draft builds on such work – which includes further references – on potential structural needs or areas, where the legislator might do well in taking a more bold and brave stance, see references within the Model Draft and referenced articles below.

To ensure most efficient and transparent drafting of the intended amendments, this GDPR Model Draft has been (pre-)published, creating a one-stop point of reference, or one source of truth. Practitioners, academia and legislators are invited to refer to and critically reflect on this Model Draft in their future work.

For the time being, this Model Draft is divided in Sections. Those sections, currently, help to bundle relevant interrelated provisions of the GDPR, and maintain model-inherent logics and structure. The more areas of GDPR might be addressed in this Model Draft in future, the less relevant will be the division by Sections compared to simply numbered Articles.

As a starting point, this Model Draft integrates suggestions regarding

core definitions of Art. 4 GDPR, mainly focussing on the current term “Personal Data”, introducing a new concept of “Individual Related Data” and distinctively addressing “Identifiers” (Section I)
the interplay of Art. 6 and Art. 9 GDPR (Section II)
the interplay of Member State Law and European Law within the concepts of Art. 6 and 9 GDPR (Section II)
the interplay of different legal bases (suggested as “Justifications”), and subsequent logical updates regarding the concepts of “Consent” and “Right to Object” (Section II)