search


keyboard_tab Digital Service Act 2022/2065 EN

BG CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR GA HR HU IT LV LT MT NL PL PT RO SK SL SV print pdf

2022/2065 EN cercato: 'expertise' . Output generated live by software developed by IusOnDemand srl


expand index expertise:

    CHAPTER I
    GENERAL PROVISIONS

    CHAPTER II
    LIABILITY OF PROVIDERS OF INTERMEDIARY SERVICES

    CHAPTER III
    DUE DILIGENCE OBLIGATIONS FOR A TRANSPARENT AND SAFE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

    SECTION 1
    Provisions applicable to all providers of intermediary services

    SECTION 2
    Additional provisions applicable to providers of hosting services, including online platforms

    SECTION 3
    Additional provisions applicable to providers of online platforms
  • 2 Art. 21 Out-of-court dispute settlement
  • 2 Art. 22 Trusted flaggers

  • SECTION 4
    Additional provisions applicable to providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders

    SECTION 5
    Additional obligations for providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines to manage systemic risks
  • 1 Art. 37 Independent audit
  • 1 Art. 42 Transparency reporting obligations

  • SECTION 6
    Other provisions concerning due diligence obligations

    CHAPTER IV
    IMPLEMENTATION, COOPERATION, PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT

    SECTION 1
    Competent authorities and national Digital Services Coordinators

    SECTION 2
    Competences, coordinated investigation and consistency mechanisms

    SECTION 3
    European Board for Digital Services

    SECTION 4
    Supervision, investigation, enforcement and monitoring in respect of providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines
  • 4 Art. 64 Development of expertise and capabilities
  • 1 Art. 72 Monitoring actions

  • SECTION 5
    Common provisions on enforcement

    SECTION 6
    Delegated and implementing acts

    CHAPTER V
    FINAL PROVISIONS


whereas expertise:


definitions:


cloud tag: and the number of total unique words without stopwords is: 648

 

Article 21

Out-of-court dispute settlement

1.   Recipients of the service, including individuals or entities that have submitted notices, addressed by the decisions referred to in Article 20(1) shall be entitled to select any out-of-court dispute settlement body that has been certified in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article in order to resolve disputes relating to those decisions, including complaints that have not been resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in that Article.

Providers of online_platforms shall ensure that information about the possibility for recipients of the service to have access to an out-of-court dispute settlement, as referred to in the first subparagraph, is easily accessible on their online_interface, clear and user-friendly.

The first subparagraph is without prejudice to the right of the recipient_of_the_service concerned to initiate, at any stage, proceedings to contest those decisions by the providers of online_platforms before a court in accordance with the applicable law.

2.   Both parties shall engage, in good faith, with the selected certified out-of-court dispute settlement body with a view to resolving the dispute.

Providers of online_platforms may refuse to engage with such out-of-court dispute settlement body if a dispute has already been resolved concerning the same information and the same grounds of alleged illegality or incompatibility of content.

The certified out-of-court dispute settlement body shall not have the power to impose a binding settlement of the dispute on the parties.

3.   The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the out-of-court dispute settlement body is established shall, for a maximum period of five years, which may be renewed, certify the body, at its request, where the body has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

(a)

it is impartial and independent, including financially independent, of providers of online_platforms and of recipients of the service provided by providers of online_platforms, including of individuals or entities that have submitted notices;

(b)

it has the necessary expertise in relation to the issues arising in one or more particular areas of illegal_content, or in relation to the application and enforcement of terms_and_conditions of one or more types of online_platform, allowing the body to contribute effectively to the settlement of a dispute;

(c)

its members are remunerated in a way that is not linked to the outcome of the procedure;

(d)

the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers is easily accessible, through electronic communications technology and provides for the possibility to initiate the dispute settlement and to submit the requisite supporting documents online;

(e)

it is capable of settling disputes in a swift, efficient and cost-effective manner and in at least one of the official languages of the institutions of the Union;

(f)

the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers takes place in accordance with clear and fair rules of procedure that are easily and publicly accessible, and that comply with applicable law, including this Article.

The Digital Services Coordinator shall, where applicable, specify in the certificate:

(a)

the particular issues to which the body’s expertise relates, as referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph; and

(b)

the official language or languages of the institutions of the Union in which the body is capable of settling disputes, as referred to in point (e) of the first subparagraph.

4.   Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall report to the Digital Services Coordinator that certified them, on an annual basis, on their functioning, specifying at least the number of disputes they received, the information about the outcomes of those disputes, the average time taken to resolve them and any shortcomings or difficulties encountered. They shall provide additional information at the request of that Digital Services Coordinator.

Digital Services Coordinators shall, every two years, draw up a report on the functioning of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they certified. That report shall in particular:

(a)

list the number of disputes that each certified out-of-court dispute settlement body has received annually;

(b)

indicate the outcomes of the procedures brought before those bodies and the average time taken to resolve the disputes;

(c)

identify and explain any systematic or sectoral shortcomings or difficulties encountered in relation to the functioning of those bodies;

(d)

identify best practices concerning that functioning;

(e)

make recommendations as to how to improve that functioning, where appropriate.

Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall make their decisions available to the parties within a reasonable period of time and no later than 90 calendar days after the receipt of the complaint. In the case of highly complex disputes, the certified out-of-court dispute settlement body may, at its own discretion, extend the 90 calendar day period for an additional period that shall not exceed 90 days, resulting in a maximum total duration of 180 days.

5.   If the out-of-court dispute settlement body decides the dispute in favour of the recipient_of_the_service, including the individual or entity that has submitted a notice, the provider of the online_platform shall bear all the fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement body, and shall reimburse that recipient, including the individual or entity, for any other reasonable expenses that it has paid in relation to the dispute settlement. If the out-of-court dispute settlement body decides the dispute in favour of the provider of the online_platform, the recipient_of_the_service, including the individual or entity, shall not be required to reimburse any fees or other expenses that the provider of the online_platform paid or is to pay in relation to the dispute settlement, unless the out-of-court dispute settlement body finds that that recipient manifestly acted in bad faith.

The fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement body to the providers of online_platforms for the dispute settlement shall be reasonable and shall in any event not exceed the costs incurred by the body. For recipients of the service, the dispute settlement shall be available free of charge or at a nominal fee.

Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall make the fees, or the mechanisms used to determine the fees, known to the recipient_of_the_service, including to the individuals or entities that have submitted a notice, and to the provider of the online_platform concerned, before engaging in the dispute settlement.

6.   Member States may establish out-of-court dispute settlement bodies for the purposes of paragraph 1 or support the activities of some or all out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 3.

Member States shall ensure that any of their activities undertaken under the first subparagraph do not affect the ability of their Digital Services Coordinators to certify the bodies concerned in accordance with paragraph 3.

7.   A Digital Services Coordinator that has certified an out-of-court dispute settlement body shall revoke that certification if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis of the information received by third parties, that the out-of-court dispute settlement body no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 3. Before revoking that certification, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford that body an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the out-of-court dispute settlement body’s certification.

8.   Digital Services Coordinators shall notify to the Commission the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 3, including where applicable the specifications referred to in the second subparagraph of that paragraph, as well as the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies the certification of which they have revoked. The Commission shall publish a list of those bodies, including those specifications, on a dedicated website that is easily accessible, and keep it up to date.

9.   This Article is without prejudice to Directive 2013/11/EU and alternative dispute resolution procedures and entities for consumers established under that Directive.

Article 22

Trusted flaggers

1.   Providers of online_platforms shall take the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers, acting within their designated area of expertise, through the mechanisms referred to in Article 16, are given priority and are processed and decided upon without undue delay.

2.   The status of ‘trusted flagger’ under this Regulation shall be awarded, upon application by any entity, by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the applicant is established, to an applicant that has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

(a)

it has particular expertise and competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal_content;

(b)

it is independent from any provider of online_platforms;

(c)

it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices diligently, accurately and objectively.

3.   Trusted flaggers shall publish, at least once a year easily comprehensible and detailed reports on notices submitted in accordance with Article 16 during the relevant period. The report shall list at least the number of notices categorised by:

(a)

the identity of the provider of hosting services,

(b)

the type of allegedly illegal_content notified,

(c)

the action taken by the provider.

Those reports shall include an explanation of the procedures in place to ensure that the trusted flagger retains its independence.

Trusted flaggers shall send those reports to the awarding Digital Services Coordinator, and shall make them publicly available. The information in those reports shall not contain personal data.

4.   Digital Services Coordinators shall communicate to the Commission and the Board the names, addresses and email addresses of the entities to which they have awarded the status of the trusted flagger in accordance with paragraph 2 or whose trusted flagger status they have suspended in accordance with paragraph 6 or revoked in accordance with paragraph 7.

5.   The Commission shall publish the information referred to in paragraph 4 in a publicly available database, in an easily accessible and machine-readable format, and shall keep the database up to date.

6.   Where a provider of online_platforms has information indicating that a trusted flagger has submitted a significant number of insufficiently precise, inaccurate or inadequately substantiated notices through the mechanisms referred to in Article 16, including information gathered in connection to the processing of complaints through the internal complaint-handling systems referred to in Article 20(4), it shall communicate that information to the Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to the entity concerned, providing the necessary explanations and supporting documents. Upon receiving the information from the provider of online_platforms, and if the Digital Services Coordinator considers that there are legitimate reasons to open an investigation, the status of trusted flagger shall be suspended during the period of the investigation. That investigation shall be carried out without undue delay.

7.   The Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to an entity shall revoke that status if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis information received from third parties, including the information provided by a provider of online_platforms pursuant to paragraph 6, that the entity no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Before revoking that status, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford the entity an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the entity’s status as trusted flagger.

8.   The Commission, after consulting the Board, shall, where necessary, issue guidelines to assist providers of online_platforms and Digital Services Coordinators in the application of paragraphs 2, 6 and 7.

Article 37

Independent audit

1.   Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall be subject, at their own expense and at least once a year, to independent audits to assess compliance with the following:

(a)

the obligations set out in Chapter III;

(b)

any commitments undertaken pursuant to the codes of conduct referred to in Articles 45 and 46 and the crisis protocols referred to in Article 48.

2.   Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall afford the organisations carrying out the audits pursuant to this Article the cooperation and assistance necessary to enable them to conduct those audits in an effective, efficient and timely manner, including by giving them access to all relevant data and premises and by answering oral or written questions. They shall refrain from hampering, unduly influencing or undermining the performance of the audit.

Such audits shall ensure an adequate level of confidentiality and professional secrecy in respect of the information obtained from the providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines and third parties in the context of the audits, including after the termination of the audits. However, complying with that requirement shall not adversely affect the performance of the audits and other provisions of this Regulation, in particular those on transparency, supervision and enforcement. Where necessary for the purpose of the transparency reporting pursuant to Article 42(4), the audit report and the audit implementation report referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article shall be accompanied with versions that do not contain any information that could reasonably be considered to be confidential.

3.   Audits performed pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be performed by organisations which:

(a)

are independent from, and do not have any conflicts of interest with, the provider of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines concerned and any legal person connected to that provider; in particular:

(i)

have not provided non-audit services related to the matters audited to the provider of very large online_platform or of very large online_search_engine concerned and to any legal person connected to that provider in the 12 months’ period before the beginning of the audit and have committed to not providing them with such services in the 12 months’ period after the completion of the audit;

(ii)

have not provided auditing services pursuant to this Article to the provider of very large online_platform or of very large online_search_engine concerned and any legal person connected to that provider during a period longer than 10 consecutive years;

(iii)

are not performing the audit in return for fees which are contingent on the result of the audit;

(b)

have proven expertise in the area of risk management, technical competence and capabilities;

(c)

have proven objectivity and professional ethics, based in particular on adherence to codes of practice or appropriate standards.

4.   Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall ensure that the organisations that perform the audits establish an audit report for each audit. That report shall be substantiated, in writing, and shall include at least the following:

(a)

the name, address and the point of contact of the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine subject to the audit and the period covered;

(b)

the name and address of the organisation or organisations performing the audit;

(c)

a declaration of interests;

(d)

a description of the specific elements audited, and the methodology applied;

(e)

a description and a summary of the main findings drawn from the audit;

(f)

a list of the third parties consulted as part of the audit;

(g)

an audit opinion on whether the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine subject to the audit complied with the obligations and with the commitments referred to in paragraph 1, namely ‘positive’, ‘positive with comments’ or ‘negative’;

(h)

where the audit opinion is not ‘positive’, operational recommendations on specific measures to achieve compliance and the recommended timeframe to achieve compliance.

5.   Where the organisation performing the audit was unable to audit certain specific elements or to express an audit opinion based on its investigations, the audit report shall include an explanation of the circumstances and the reasons why those elements could not be audited.

6.   Providers of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines receiving an audit report that is not ‘positive’ shall take due account of the operational recommendations addressed to them with a view to take the necessary measures to implement them. They shall, within one month from receiving those recommendations, adopt an audit implementation report setting out those measures. Where they do not implement the operational recommendations, they shall justify in the audit implementation report the reasons for not doing so and set out any alternative measures that they have taken to address any instances of non-compliance identified.

7.   The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 87 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary rules for the performance of the audits pursuant to this Article, in particular as regards the necessary rules on the procedural steps, auditing methodologies and reporting templates for the audits performed pursuant to this Article. Those delegated acts shall take into account any voluntary auditing standards referred to in Article 44(1), point (e).

Article 42

Transparency reporting obligations

1.   Providers of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines shall publish the reports referred to in Article 15 at the latest by two months from the date of application referred to in Article 33(6), second subparagraph, and thereafter at least every six months.

2.   The reports referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article published by providers of very large online_platforms shall, in addition to the information referred to in Article 15 and Article 24(1), specify:

(a)

the human resources that the provider of very large online_platforms dedicates to content_moderation in respect of the service offered in the Union, broken down by each applicable official language of the Member States, including for compliance with the obligations set out in Articles 16 and 22, as well as for compliance with the obligations set out in Article 20;

(b)

the qualifications and linguistic expertise of the persons carrying out the activities referred to in point (a), as well as the training and support given to such staff;

(c)

the indicators of accuracy and related information referred to in Article 15(1), point (e), broken down by each official language of the Member States.

The reports shall be published in at least one of the official languages of the Member States.

3.   In addition to the information referred to in Articles 24(2), the providers of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines shall include in the reports referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article the information on the average monthly recipients of the service for each Member State.

4.   Providers of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines shall transmit to the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment and the Commission, without undue delay upon completion, and make publicly available at the latest three months after the receipt of each audit report pursuant to Article 37(4):

(a)

a report setting out the results of the risk assessment pursuant to Article 34;

(b)

the specific mitigation measures put in place pursuant to Article 35(1);

(c)

the audit report provided for in Article 37(4);

(d)

the audit implementation report provided for in Article 37(6);

(e)

where applicable, information about the consultations conducted by the provider in support of the risk assessments and design of the risk mitigation measures.

5.   Where a provider of very large online_platform or of very large online_search_engine considers that the publication of information pursuant to paragraph 4 might result in the disclosure of confidential information of that provider or of the recipients of the service, cause significant vulnerabilities for the security of its service, undermine public security or harm recipients, the provider may remove such information from the publicly available reports. In that case, the provider shall transmit the complete reports to the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment and the Commission, accompanied by a statement of the reasons for removing the information from the publicly available reports.

Article 64

Development of expertise and capabilities

1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Digital Services Coordinators and the Board, shall develop Union expertise and capabilities, including, where appropriate, through the secondment of Member States’ personnel.

2.   In addition, the Commission, in cooperation with the Digital Services Coordinators and the Board, shall coordinate the assessment of systemic and emerging issues across the Union in relation to very large online_platforms or very large online_search_engines with regard to matters covered by this Regulation.

3.   The Commission may ask the Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and other Union bodies, offices and agencies with relevant expertise to support the assessment of systemic and emerging issues across the Union under this Regulation.

4.   Member States shall cooperate with the Commission, in particular through their respective Digital Services Coordinators and other competent authorities, where applicable, including by making available their expertise and capabilities.

Article 72

Monitoring actions

1.   For the purposes of carrying out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the Commission may take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation by providers of the very large online_platform and of the very large online_search_engines. The Commission may order them to provide access to, and explanations relating to, its databases and algorithms. Such actions may include, imposing an obligation on the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine to retain all documents deemed to be necessary to assess the implementation of and compliance with the obligations under this Regulation.

2.   The actions pursuant to paragraph 1 may include the appointment of independent external experts and auditors, as well as experts and auditors from competent national authorities with the agreement of the authority concerned, to assist the Commission in monitoring the effective implementation and compliance with the relevant provisions of this Regulation and to provide specific expertise or knowledge to the Commission.


whereas









keyboard_arrow_down