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: 'insufficient' . Output generated live by software developed by IusOnDemand srl


expand index insufficient:

    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
  • 1 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

    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
  • 1 Art. 58 Cross-border cooperation among Digital Services Coordinators
  • 1 Art. 59 Referral to the Commission

  • 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
  • 2 Art. 75 Enhanced supervision of remedies to address infringements of obligations laid down in Section 5 of Chapter III

  • SECTION 5
    Common provisions on enforcement

    SECTION 6
    Delegated and implementing acts

    CHAPTER V
    FINAL PROVISIONS


whereas insufficient:


definitions:


cloud tag: and the number of total unique words without stopwords is: 358

 

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 58

Cross-border cooperation among Digital Services Coordinators

1.   Unless the Commission has initiated an investigation for the same alleged infringement, where a Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_destination has reason to suspect that a provider of an intermediary_service has infringed this Regulation in a manner negatively affecting the recipients of the service in the Member State of that Digital Services Coordinator, it may request the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment to assess the matter and to take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

2.   Unless the Commission has initiated an investigation for the same alleged infringement, and at the request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators of destination that have reason to suspect that a specific provider of intermediary_services infringed this Regulation in a manner negatively affecting recipients of the service in their Member States, the Board may request the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment to assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

3.   A request pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 shall be duly reasoned, and shall at least indicate:

(a)

the point of contact of the provider of the intermediary_services concerned as provided for in Article 11;

(b)

a description of the relevant facts, the provisions of this Regulation concerned and the reasons why the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, suspects that the provider infringed this Regulation, including the description of the negative effects of the alleged infringement;

(c)

any other information that the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, considers relevant, including, where appropriate, information gathered on its own initiative or suggestions for specific investigatory or enforcement measures to be taken, including interim measures.

4.   The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall take utmost account of the request pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article. Where it considers that it has insufficient information to act upon the request and has reasons to consider that the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, could provide additional information, the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment may either request such information in accordance with Article 57 or, alternatively, may launch a joint investigation pursuant to Article 60(1) involving at least the requesting Digital Services Coordinator. The period laid down in paragraph 5 of this Article shall be suspended until that additional information is provided or until the invitation to participate in the joint investigation is refused.

5.   The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall, without undue delay and in any event not later than two months following receipt of the request pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2, communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, and the Board, the assessment of the suspected infringement and an explanation of any investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged in relation thereto to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

Article 59

Referral to the Commission

1.   In the absence of a communication within the period laid down in Article 58(5), in the case of a disagreement of the Board with the assessment or the measures taken or envisaged pursuant to Article 58(5) or in the cases referred to in Article 60(3), the Board may refer the matter to the Commission, providing all relevant information. That information shall include at least the request or recommendation sent to the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment, the assessment by that Digital Services Coordinator, the reasons for the disagreement and any additional information supporting the referral.

2.   The Commission shall assess the matter within two months following the referral of the matter pursuant to paragraph 1, after having consulted the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment.

3.   Where, pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the Commission considers that the assessment or the investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged pursuant to Article 58(5) are insufficient to ensure effective enforcement or otherwise incompatible with this Regulation, it shall communicate its views to the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment and the Board and request the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment to review the matter.

The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall take the necessary investigatory or enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation, taking utmost account of the views and request for review by the Commission. The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall inform the Commission, as well as the requesting Digital Services Coordinator or the Board that took action pursuant to Article 58(1) or (2), about the measures taken within two months from that request for review.

Article 75

Enhanced supervision of remedies to address infringements of obligations laid down in Section 5 of Chapter III

1.   When adopting a decision pursuant to Article 73 in relation to an infringement by a provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine of any of the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter III, the Commission shall make use of the enhanced supervision system laid down in this Article. When doing so, it shall take utmost account of any opinion of the Board pursuant to this Article.

2.   In the decision referred to in Article 73, the Commission shall require the provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine concerned to draw up and communicate, within a reasonable period specified in the decision, to the Digital Services Coordinators, the Commission and the Board an action plan setting out the necessary measures which are sufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement. Those measures shall include a commitment to perform an independent audit in accordance with Article 37(3) and (4) on the implementation of the other measures, and shall specify the identity of the auditors, as well as the methodology, timing and follow-up of the audit. The measures may also include, where appropriate, a commitment to participate in a relevant code of conduct, as provided for in Article 45.

3.   Within one month following receipt of the action plan, the Board shall communicate its opinion on the action plan to the Commission. Within one month following receipt of that opinion, the Commission shall decide whether the measures set out in the action plan are sufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement, and shall set a reasonable period for its implementation. The possible commitment to adhere to relevant codes of conduct shall be taken into account in that decision. The Commission shall subsequently monitor the implementation of the action plan. To that end, the provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine concerned shall communicate the audit report to the Commission without undue delay after it becomes available, and shall keep the Commission up to date on steps taken to implement the action plan. The Commission may, where necessary for such monitoring, require the provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine concerned to provide additional information within a reasonable period set by the Commission.

The Commission shall keep the Board and the Digital Services Coordinators informed about the implementation of the action plan, and about its monitoring thereof.

4.   The Commission may take necessary measures in accordance with this Regulation, in particular Article 76(1), point (e), and Article 82(1), where:

(a)

the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine concerned fails to provide any action plan, the audit report, the necessary updates or any additional information required, within the applicable period;

(b)

the Commission rejects the proposed action plan because it considers that the measures set out therein are insufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement; or

(c)

the Commission considers, on the basis of the audit report, any updates or additional information provided or any other relevant information available to it, that the implementation of the action plan is insufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement.


whereas









keyboard_arrow_down