GDPR Article 83 – Part 1: Purpose of Fines and Enforcement Framework

You can access the official legal text of GDPR Article 83 via the European Union’s legal database at eur-lex.europa.eu
.

Article 83(1) – Purpose of Fines

Fines must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. This sets the principle behind administrative fines. Supervisory authorities must ensure that penalties are:

• Effective: They must actually enforce compliance.
• Proportionate: They must match the severity of the violation.
• Dissuasive: They must discourage future violations.

Article 83(2) GDPR — Fines vs. Corrective Measures

“Administrative fines shall, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, be imposed in addition to, or instead of, measures referred to in points (a) to (h) and (j) of Article 58(2).”

This clause gives supervisory authorities discretion to impose fines either:

• Alongside other corrective measures (e.g., warnings, orders to comply, data processing bans), or
• Instead of those measures, depending on the case.

The referenced points in Article 58(2) include:

• (a) Warning
• (b) Reprimand
• (c) Order to comply
• (d) Order to fulfill data subject requests
• (e) Order to rectify or erase data
• (f) Restriction of processing
• (g) Notification of breach to data subjects
• (h) Withdrawal of certification
• (j) Suspension of data flows

This clause ensures flexibility in enforcement—fines aren’t mandatory, but they’re available when appropriate.

“When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to the following:”

This introduces ten specific criteria that must be considered. Here’s a breakdown of each:

(a) Nature, Gravity, and Duration of the Infringement Includes:

• Type of violation (e.g., unlawful processing vs. technical failure)
• Scope (how much data, how many subjects)
• Purpose of processing (e.g., commercial exploitation vs. internal use)
• Duration (one-time vs. ongoing)
• Level of harm to data subjects

This is the core factor in assessing seriousness.

(b) Intentional or Negligent Character Was the violation:

• Deliberate (e.g., ignoring legal advice)?
• Or accidental (e.g., technical misconfiguration)?
• Intentional breaches are penalized more severely.

(c) Mitigation Efforts Did the controller/processor:

• Act quickly to limit damage?
• Offer remedies to affected individuals?
• Cooperate with authorities?

This shows good faith and can reduce the fine.

(d) Degree of Responsibility Based on:

• Organizational structure
• Technical and organizational measures under Articles 25 (data protection by design) and 32 (security)

A company with robust safeguards may be seen as less culpable.

(e) Previous Infringements A history of violations increases liability. Repeat offenders face higher fines.

(f) Cooperation with Supervisory Authority Includes:

• Transparency
• Responsiveness
• Willingness to comply

Cooperation can be a mitigating factor.

(g) Categories of Personal Data Affected Sensitive data (e.g., health, biometric, racial origin) triggers higher concern. Breaches involving special category data under Article 9 are more serious.

“Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” (Article 9(1) GDPR)

(h) Manner of Discovery Did the organization:

• Self-report the breach?
• Or was it discovered by the authority?

Voluntary disclosure is viewed favorably.

(i) Compliance with Previous Orders If the authority had previously ordered corrective action under Article 58(2), did the organization:

• Comply fully?
• Ignore or delay implementation?

Non-compliance is an aggravating factor.

(j) Adherence to Codes and Certifications Was the organization:

• Following an approved code of conduct (Article 40)?
• Certified under an approved mechanism (Article 42)?

Adherence shows commitment to compliance and may reduce penalties.

(k) Other Aggravating or Mitigating Factors

“Such as financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement.”

If the violation led to profit, that’s aggravating. If the organization avoided harm through proactive measures, that’s mitigating. This clause allows case-specific nuance.