Access official publication on EDPB website.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These guidelines analyse the criteria set down in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR that controllers must meet to lawfully engage in the processing of personal data that is “necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party”.

Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is one of the six legal bases for the lawful processing of personal data envisaged by the GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR should neither be treated as a “last resort” for rare or unexpected situations where other legal bases are deemed not to apply nor should it be automatically chosen or its use unduly extended on the basis of a perception that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is less constraining than other legal bases.

For processing to be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, three cumulative conditions must be fulfilled:

• First, the pursuit of a legitimate interest by the controller or by a third party;
• Second, the need to process personal data for the purposes of the legitimate interest(s) pursued; and
• Third, the interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of the concerned data subjects do not take precedence over the legitimate interest(s) of the controller or of a third party.

In order to determine whether a given processing of personal data may be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, controllers should carefully assess and document whether these three cumulative conditions are met. This assessment should be done before carrying out the relevant processing operations.

With regard to the condition relating to the pursuit of a legitimate interest, not all interests of the controller or a third party may be deemed legitimate; only those interests that are lawful, precisely articulated and present may be validly invoked to rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legal basis. It is also the responsibility of the controller to inform the data subject of the legitimate interests pursued where that processing is based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the processing of personal data be necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued, it should be ascertained whether the legitimate interests pursued cannot reasonably be achieved just as effectively by other means less restrictive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects, also taking into account the principles enshrined in Article 5(1) GDPR. If such other means exist, the processing may not be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the person concerned by the data processing do not take precedence over the legitimate interests of the controller or of a third party, that condition entails a balancing of the opposing rights and interests at issue which depends in principle on the specific circumstances of the relevant processing. The processing may take place only if the outcome of this balancing exercise is that the legitimate interests being pursued are not overridden by the data subjects’ interests, rights and freedoms.

A proper Article 6(1)(f) GDPR assessment is not a straightforward exercise. Rather, the assessment — and in particular the balancing of opposing interests and rights — requires full consideration of a number of factors, such as the nature and source of the relevant legitimate interest(s), the impact of the processing on the data subject and their reasonable expectations about the processing, and the existence of additional safeguards which could limit undue impact on the data subject. The present guidelines provide guidance on how such an assessment should be carried out in practice, including in a number of specific contexts (e.g., fraud prevention, direct marketing, information security, etc.) where this legal basis may be considered.

The guidelines also explain the relationship that exists between Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and a number of data subject rights under the GDPR.

Version 1.0 – Adopted on 8 October 2024

These guidelines analyse the criteria set down in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR that controllers must meet to lawfully engage in the processing of personal data that is “necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party”.

Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is one of the six legal bases for the lawful processing of personal data envisaged by the GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR should neither be treated as a “last resort” for rare or unexpected situations where other legal bases are deemed not to apply nor should it be automatically chosen or its use unduly extended on the basis of a perception that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is less constraining than other legal bases.

For processing to be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, three cumulative conditions must be fulfilled: • First, the pursuit of a legitimate interest by the controller or by a third party; • Second, the need to process personal data for the purposes of the legitimate interest(s) pursued; and • Third, the interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of the concerned data subjects do not take precedence over the legitimate interest(s) of the controller or of a third party.

In order to determine whether a given processing of personal data may be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, controllers should carefully assess and document whether these three cumulative conditions are met. This assessment should be done before carrying out the relevant processing operations.

With regard to the condition relating to the pursuit of a legitimate interest, not all interests of the controller or a third party may be deemed legitimate; only those interests that are lawful, precisely articulated and present may be validly invoked to rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legal basis. It is also the responsibility of the controller to inform the data subject of the legitimate interests pursued where that processing is based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the processing of personal data be necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued, it should be ascertained whether the legitimate interests pursued cannot reasonably be achieved just as effectively by other means less restrictive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects, also taking into account the principles enshrined in Article 5(1) GDPR. If such other means exist, the processing may not be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the person concerned by the data processing do not take precedence over the legitimate interests of the controller or of a third party, that condition entails a balancing of the opposing rights and interests at issue which depends in principle on the specific circumstances of the relevant processing. The processing may take place only if the outcome of this balancing exercise is that the legitimate interests being pursued are not overridden by the data subjects’ interests, rights and freedoms.

A proper Article 6(1)(f) GDPR assessment is not a straightforward exercise. Rather, the assessment — and in particular the balancing of opposing interests and rights — requires full consideration of a number of factors, such as the nature and source of the relevant legitimate interest(s), the impact of the processing on the data subject and their reasonable expectations about the processing, and the existence of additional safeguards which could limit undue impact on the data subject. The present guidelines provide guidance on how such an assessment should be carried out in practice, including in a number of specific contexts (e.g., fraud prevention, direct marketing, information security, etc.) where this legal basis may be considered.

The guidelines also explain the relationship that exists between Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and a number of data subject rights under the GDPR.

Go to the full Guidelines.

Version 2.1 – Adopted on 24 May 2023

Version history

Executive summary

Article 65(1)(a) GDPR is a dispute resolution mechanism meant to ensure the correct and consistent application of the GDPR in cases involving cross-border processing of personal data. It aims to resolve conflicting views among the LSA(s) and CSA(s) on the merits of the case, in particular whether there is an infringement of the GDPR or not, in order to ensure the correct and consistent application of the GDPR in individual cases. These Guidelines clarify the application of the dispute resolution procedure under Article 65(1)(a) GDPR.

Article 65(1)(a) GDPR requires the EDPB issues a binding decision whenever a Lead Supervisory Authority (LSA) issues a draft decision and receives objections from Concerned Supervisory Authorities (CSAs) that either it does not follow or it deems to be not relevant and reasoned.

These Guidelines clarify the applicable legal framework and main stages of the procedure, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the GDPR and EDPB Rules of Procedure. The Guidelines also clarify the competence of the EDPB when adopting a legally binding decision on the basis of Article 65(1)(a) GDPR. In accordance with Article 65(1)(a) GDPR, the EDPB binding decision shall concern all the matters which are the subject of the relevant and reasoned objection. Consequently, the EDPB will first assess whether the objection(s) raised meet the “relevant and reasoned” standard set in Article 4(24) GDPR. Only for the objections meeting this threshold, the EDPB will take a position on the merits of the substantial issues raised. The Guidelines analyse examples of objections signalling disagreements between the LSA and CSA(s) on specific matters and clarify the EDPB’s competence in each case.

The Guidelines also clarify the applicable procedural safeguards and remedies, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the GDPR and EDPB Rules of Procedure. In particular, these Guidelines address the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the duty for the EDPB to provide reasoning for its decisions, as well as a description of the available judicial remedies.

These Guidelines do not concern dispute resolution by the EDPB in cases where: (1) there are conflicting views on which of the supervisory authorities concerned is competent for the main establishment (Article 65(1)(b) GDPR); or (2) a competent supervisory authority does not request the opinion of the Board in the cases referred to in Article 64(1), or does not follow the opinion of the Board issued under Article 64 (Article 65(1)(c) GDPR).

Go to the full Guidelines.

EDPB Guidelines on Amicable Settlements: Key Points

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has released guidelines on how supervisory authorities (SAs) should handle amicable settlements under GDPR. Here are the key takeaways:

What is an Amicable Settlement?

• A process where data protection authorities facilitate resolution of complaints between data subjects and controllers
• Aims to achieve compliance with GDPR while satisfying both parties’ interests
• Most suitable for cases involving:
  • Limited number of data subjects
  • Non-systematic violations
  • Incidental/accidental breaches
  • Limited personal data
  • Non-serious violations

Key Principles

• Not all EU countries allow amicable settlements (14 countries explicitly don’t permit them)
• Can be used in both local cases and cross-border processing scenarios
• Must respect principles of good administration and due process
• Should lead to swift resolution while maintaining high level of data protection

Cross-border Cases

In One-Stop-Shop (OSS) mechanism:

• Lead Supervisory Authority (LSA) must keep Concerned Supervisory Authorities (CSAs) informed
• Settlement requires formal decision under Article 60 GDPR
• CSAs must be consulted before finalizing settlement
• LSA remains “sole interlocutor” with the controller

Important Considerations

• Settlement doesn’t prevent further investigation if systemic issues are discovered
• Can be partial – some aspects of complaint may require formal investigation
• Must be documented and communicated properly to all parties
• Should include proof of compliance from controller and satisfaction from data subject

These guidelines represent a significant step toward harmonizing how data protection authorities handle complaints across the EU, while maintaining flexibility to account for national legal frameworks and specific case circumstances.

Go to the full guidelines.