The Data Trustee Competence Network (DaTNet) acts as the voice of the emerging data trust community in Germany. Through its participation in the Digital Omnibus process, DaTNet contributes the perspectives of the research community, industry, public administration and civil society to the European debate. Inspiration was created for this during the DaTNet Networking Conference in 2025, at which Dr Malte Beyer-Katzenberger (European Commission, DG CONNECT) outlined the further development of European data policy and encouraged participants to contribute their practical experiences to the consultation process. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
![\"Malte](\"https:\/\/datnet.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Malte-Beyer-Katzenberger.jpg\")
Thanks to its positioning, DaTNet continues its work at the interface between research, policy and practice and contributes to further raising the profile of the concept of data trusteeship within the European context. This page features both the summary and the full text of the statement which was submitted. <\/p>\n\n
You can download the full statement on the investigation regarding \u2018Omnibus provisions for the digital sector (part of the simplification package for the digital sector)\u2019<\/a> as well as a summary<\/a> in PDF format.<\/p>\n\n The signatory academics from the Competence Network for Data Trustee Models (DaTNet) are pleased to provide their perspective on the reform needs with regard to the Data Governance Act and the Directive on open data. <\/p>\n\n As the European Commission notes in its call for comments, measures to enhance coherence<\/em> and ensure greater legal certainty<\/em> are required in relation to these two legal acts. We propose the following changes: <\/p>\n\n Whilst this objective is generally to be welcomed, the question arises as to why providers of data intermediation services are subject to comparatively strict regulation, whilst, for example, data brokers are exempt from regulation (Article 2(11)(a) DGA). The regulatory objective should be highlighted even more clearly here. The regulatory objective should be highlighted even more clearly here.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n\n The requirement of a \u2018separate legal person\u2019 (Article 12(a) DGA) should be clarified.<\/p>\n\n Proposed amendment (Article 12(a) DGA, reworded):<\/p>\n\n \u2018[T]he data intermediation services provider shall not use the data for which it provides data intermediation services for purposes other than to put them at the disposal of data users.\u2019 Data intermediation services are provided by a legally independent organisational unit which has legal personality or legal capacity and is organisationally separate from the provider\u2019s other activities. Member States shall ensure that legal forms offering limited liability are available for this purpose.\u2019<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Reasons: The proposed wording replaces the narrow concept of a \u2018legal person\u2019 with the more appropriate criterion of legal capacity and limited liability, thereby also encompassing company forms such as the GmbH & Co. KG or the GbR with legal capacity provided that they have a clear governance structure. The term, which is to be understood autonomously within the EU legal framework, is defined in a functional manner (legal capacity rather than the narrow concept of a \u2018legal person\u2019) without undermining the required separation\/neutrality; at the same time, the text addresses the significant liability risks encountered in practice (GDPR, competition law) by referring to available forms of limited liability (e.g. GmbH, AG or, where applicable, GmbH & Co. KG). <\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n\n A new Article 12a of the DGA, \u2018Corporate Governance of Data Intermediation Services\u2019, should therefore be introduced to safeguard neutrality, independence and trust by means of minimum standards.<\/p>\n\n This new article establishes a framework for corporate governance principles applicable to data trustees and ensures that corporate law control mechanisms (duty of loyalty, advisory board, co-determination) are effectively aligned with data neutrality and the building of trust without interfering with the legal structures established by Member States.<\/p>\n\n Proposal for a new Article 12a:<\/p>\n\n \u2018Article 12a \u2013 Minimum corporate law requirements\u2019 <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n A special form recognised across the EU with limited liability<\/em> could promote trust and market homogeneity. We therefore propose a new legal form: the \u2018European Data Trust\u2019<\/em>. An optional European company form like this would establish uniform governance standards without depriving Member States of their autonomy in matters of company law along the lines of the SE (Societas Europaea) or the SCE (European Cooperative Society). Two proposed amendments to this effect comprise a new Recital 33a and a new Article 12b. <\/p>\n\n New Recital 33a: <\/p>\n\n \u2018In order to promote uniform minimum standards for the corporate organisation of data intermediation services, Member States may provide for a specific national legal form or designation (European Data Trust, EDaT) which is designed to ensure limited liability, neutrality and transparency.\u2019<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n New Section 12b DGA \u2013 European Data Trust (EDaT): <\/p>\n\n \u2018(1) Member States may establish a specific legal form or a legally protected designation for providers of data intermediation services. <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n The incorporation of data neutrality as an aspect of the duty of loyalty under company law broadens the scope of company law, strengthens the internal obligations of corporate bodies<\/em> and makes obligations of neutrality<\/em> enforceable under civil law as well. <\/p>\n\n Proposed amendment to Article 12(a) DGA: <\/p>\n\n \u2018This obligation is regarded, in internal matters, as a manifestation of the duty of loyalty under company law incumbent on members of the governing bodies and shareholders; it must be incorporated into the articles of association and taken into account when appointing members of the governing bodies.\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n <\/p>\n\n Article 18 DGA (data altruism organisations) should be made more precise. The proposed clarification set out below allows for self-sustaining governance structures<\/em> and prevents data altruism organisations from being effectively excluded from professional corporate forms. <\/p>\n\n Section 18(2)(c) DGA \u2013 new: <\/p>\n\n \u2018operates on a not-for-profit basis; this is not precluded by the fact that ancillary economic activities are carried out solely to finance the altruistic purposes, provided that this does not give rise to conflicts of interest with the altruistic purpose and no profit distribution takes place; the legal independence of organisations pursuing profit-making purposes remains unaffected.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n <\/p>\n\n Such disclosure of the governance of data intermediation services<\/em> promotes transparency and trust. It makes the corporate structure for data providers and users traceable without introducing any additional registration requirements. <\/p>\n\n Proposed amendment to Article 11(6) DGA (new subparagraphs (h) to (k)): <\/p>\n\n \u2018(h) Details of supervisory boards\/advisory boards (composition, appointment criteria, independence criteria), <\/strong> Proposed amendment to Article 11(14) \u2013 sentence (new): <\/p>\n\n \u2018The information referred to in paragraph 6(a)-(c), (f) and (h)-(k) shall be published in this register.\u2019 <\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n New Recital 33b \u2013 Company law and data governance: <\/p>\n\n \u2018As trust in data intermediation services depends largely on their organisation under company law, appropriate governance mechanisms (neutrality as a duty of loyalty, independent supervisory bodies, transparency regarding ownership and control structures) should shape the internal structure of these services. This ensures that the framework for neutrality and independence, as set out in Articles 10-12, is properly safeguarded.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n <\/p>\n\n It is proposed that an amendment, primarily for the sake of clarity, be made to classify the services of a transaction-based trustee (and similar activities) as a sub-category of data intermediary activities. <\/p>\n\n German: \u201e<\/strong>(e) Datenvermittlungsdienste k\u00f6nnen ein Angebot zus\u00e4tzlicher spezifischer Werkzeuge und Dienste f\u00fcr Dateninhaber oder betroffene Personen umfassen, insbesondere um den Datenaustausch zu erleichtern, z. B. vor\u00fcbergehende Speicherung, wertneutrale Aggregation, Auswertung, Pflege, Konvertierung, Anonymisierung und Pseudonymisierung; diese Werkzeuge werden nur auf ausdr\u00fccklichen Antrag oder mit Zustimmung des Dateninhabers oder der betroffenen Person verwendet, und die in diesem Zusammenhang angebotenen Werkzeugen Dritter werden f\u00fcr keine anderen Zwecke verwendet;<\/strong>\u201c<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n English: \u2018<\/strong>(e) data intermediation services may include offering additional specific tools and services to data holders or data subjects for the specific purpose of facilitating the exchange of data, such as temporary storage, value-neutral aggregation, evaluation, curation, conversion, anonymisation and pseudonymisation, such tools being used only at the explicit request or approval of the data holder or data subject, and third-party tools offered in that context not being used for other purposes;<\/strong>\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n <\/p>\n\n These ambiguities regarding such a key concept as \u2018commercial relationships\u2019, which is central to the scope of the DGA, should be resolved. <\/p>\n\n Due to discrepancies between the different language versions of the DGA, it is unclear whether these additional services are permitted exclusively or in particular to facilitate the exchange of data. This needs to be clarified. Furthermore, it may also be appropriate to regard low-threshold value-added services<\/em> such as curation and standardisation as permissible. <\/p>\n\n It is not clear from the provision whether its aim is to ensure that the claims of data providers and data users should be given priority in the hierarchy of creditors\u2019 claims. These ambiguities should be resolved. Only a framework for dealing with insolvency that is geared towards sustainability<\/em> can strengthen confidence in new intermediaries. <\/p>\n\n It is appropriate that neither the Open Data Directive nor the Data Governance Act impose a \u2018strict\u2019 obligation to make data openly available.\u202fThis should remain the case. <\/p>\n\n However, on the one hand, the cost-benefit ratio of providing open data should be reviewed. It should be kept in mind that the provision and ongoing maintenance of dynamic data via high-performance APIs entails a considerable technical, staffing and financial outlay. For local authorities in particular, which are often faced with tight budgets and limited IT resources, this requirement might not be feasible. Against this backdrop, it is worth considering whether the available resources might be better spent initially on creating a standardised and modernised basic infrastructure (rather than on \u2018openness\u2019). Such a consolidated foundation could then, in a further step, pave the way for a broader and potentially more cost-effective API deployment. <\/p>\n\n On the other hand, the critical nature of data, and of data provision, is different now than it was just a few years ago. The different geopolitical situation has since proved to be a challenge for the \u2018open\u2019 concept. This applies to science (\u2018Open Science\u2019), but also to the public sector as a whole. In principle, therefore, security concerns might be justified, for example where detailed local authority data is involved. Keyword \u2018Critical Infrastructure\u2019 (KRITIS): Real-time traffic light sequences in City X, HVDs from the dam management department of Water Management Association Y, bridge load-bearing capacity and structural condition in City Z etc. may also contain information that is relevant from a security perspective. <\/p>\n\n Finally, the question arises as to whether access to public sector data should be guaranteed equally to all applicants or whether there should be restrictions on companies based in third countries or on companies designated as gatekeepers (analogous to the provisions under the Data Act, Art. 5(3) Data Act).<\/p>\n
\n\nStatement on the investigation regarding \u2018Omnibus provisions for the digital sector (part of the simplification package for the digital sector)\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n