Repeals effected by the Digital Omnibus Regulation proposal

The Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal contains a set of express repeal provisions affecting selected instruments within the EU digital and data acquis, notably Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 (the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation), Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 (the Platform-to-Business Regulation / “P2B”), Regulation (EU) 2022/868 (the Data Governance Act) and Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (the Open Data Directive). These repeals are not presented as a withdrawal of regulatory objectives or protections. Instead, they operate as structural consolidation measures, accompanying the transfer of operative rules into other instruments, most notably Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 (the Data Act) and, in more limited cases, the GDPR and other sectoral regimes. The Annex correlation tables indicate which provisions are carried across and which are repealed without a successor provision.

Proposals most likely to be adopted and rationale

This Section addresses, in turn: (1) express repeals linked to consolidation into the Data Act; and (2) repeal of provisions rendered redundant by parallel EU legislation.

1. Express repeals linked to consolidation into the Data Act

The Proposal provides for the express repeal of selected standalone instruments or provisions within the EU data acquis, where their operative rules are simultaneously reallocated into the Data Act through corresponding amendments, including (in particular) the provisions on “public sector information and re-use”  currently governed by the Open Data Directive and elements  of the Data Governance Act framework, which the Proposal transfers into new Data Act provisions (including proposed new Article 32i and related Articles).

These repeals are effected through explicit repeal clauses in the Omnibus Regulation and accompanied by consequential amendments to ensure that the substantive content of the repealed provisions continues to apply within the consolidated Data Act framework, but only to the extent a clear successor obligation exists in the amended Data Act.

This aspect of the Proposal is likely to be adopted because it:

• preserves the substantive rights and obligations previously applicable under the repealed instruments where they are expressly moved, while reducing overlap in the operative rule-sets applicable to the same datasets/actors;
• avoids parallel or overlapping legal regimes governing the same data access and use scenarios; and
• employs a clear legislative technique combining express repeal with contemporaneous reallocation, thereby limiting legal uncertainty.

The use of express repeal provisions, rather than implied repeal, reduces the risk of interpretative ambiguity as to the continuing applicability of the affected rules, although the correlation tables also make clear that “consolidation” is not always a verbatim lift-and-shift (and may involve partial carry-over only), which will be a likely focal point in negotiations.

2. Repeal of provisions rendered redundant by parallel EU legislation

The Proposal further repeals certain provisions across different instruments that the Commission considers overlapping in light of subsequently adopted EU legislation governing the same subject matter.

Examples include repeals of provisions relating to:

• security and incident notification, where equivalent or more comprehensive obligations now apply under NIS2 and GDPR, including (within this package) the repeal of Article 4 of the ePrivacy Directive (security and breach notification for publicly available electronic communications services), justified expressly by overlap with NIS2 and GDPR Articles 32–34; and
• procedural obligations that are superseded in practice by harmonised frameworks introduced by newer instruments, including (as flagged by the Proposal) parts of the “data acquis” where operational obligations are rationalised into the Data Act and parallel instruments rather than maintained as standalone frameworks.

These repeals are likely to be adopted because they:

• do not remove substantive protection, but eliminate overlapping layers of regulation or relocate protection into a more “horizontal” instrument (most notably the Data Act) where the same compliance outcome is intended to be achieved through a single rule-set;
• respond to widely acknowledged concerns regarding duplicative compliance burdens; and
• are framed as consequential clean-up measures rather than policy reversals.

Proposals more likely to be challenged, or rejected and rationale

This Section addresses, in turn: (1) transitional and the absence of express saving provisions following repeal; and (2) legal certainty concerns linked to reliance on reallocation rather than replication of repealed provisions.

1. Transitional issues and the absence of express saving provisions following repeal

Although the Proposal relies on express repeal combined with reallocation, it gives rise to transitional questions regarding the treatment of situations governed by the repealed instruments prior to their repeal.

In particular, concerns may arise as to:

• the status of implementing acts, delegated acts, or guidance adopted under the repealed instruments;
• the handling of ongoing compliance processes initiated under the repealed regimes; and
• the continuation of investigations or enforcement actions commenced before repeal takes effect, including how competent authorities should treat “in-flight” assessments or enforcement positions that were grounded in the repealed instrument’s structure (rather than the Data Act’s revised architecture).

This aspect of the Proposal is more likely to be challenged because, absent express savings or transitional clauses, repeal may create uncertainty for regulated entities and competent authorities alike, particularly where the correlation tables indicate that certain provisions are repealed outright rather than reallocated (i.e., where there is no “successor” Data Act rule).

Legislators are therefore likely to seek:

• transitional provisions confirming continuity of applicable rules during a defined period; and
• savings clauses preserving the legal effects of acts adopted under the repealed instruments for past conduct, and clarifying (where relevant) the status of national measures adopted to implement repealed Directives (notably Directive (EU) 2019/1024), pending replacement compliance mappings under the amended Data Act.

2. Legal certainty concerns arising from consolidation by reference

A further point of scrutiny concerns the legislative technique of reallocation and consolidation, whereby substantive rules are relocated into another instrument rather than reproduced verbatim.

While this approach supports coherence, it may give rise to concerns as to:

• whether the scope and interpretation of reallocated provisions remain identical to those under the repealed instruments, particularly where the Proposal’s correlation tables indicate partial carry-over and partial repeal rather than full replication;
• how courts and authorities are to construe references to repealed legislation in existing contracts, guidance, or administrative practice; and
• the risk of inadvertent substantive change through redrafting or contextual repositioning, including where Data Act enforcement concepts and remedial architecture (Chapter VIII) become the procedural “home” for obligations that previously sat under materially different governance models.

This aspect of the Proposal is therefore more likely to be narrowed through:

• clarification recitals confirming that reallocation does not alter the meaning or scope of the repealed provisions where substantive equivalence is intended; and
• targeted drafting adjustments to minimise interpretative divergence during the transition to the consolidated framework, including (in practice) clearer “successor provision” mapping in the operative text (not merely in annexed correlation tables), so that regulated entities can evidence compliance against a stable citation structure.

Taken together, the repeal provisions of the Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal illustrate the Commission’s chosen legislative technique for the package as a whole: formal consolidation and structural streamlining, rather than deregulation or rollback of substantive safeguards. The principal legal questions raised by these repeals are therefore transitional and interpretative, rather than normative, albeit with a non-trivial normative edge wherever a repealed provision is not carried over (and the absence of a successor rule changes the compliance baseline).