Your cookie preferences

EDPB guidance · Art. 7 GDPR

We use technical cookies essential for the platform to work (login, security, sessions). We would also like to use analytics cookies to understand how to improve it.

You can accept all, reject all, or choose which categories to switch on.Your consent is valid for 6 months and you can withdraw it at any time from the footer.

You will find everything in our privacy notice.

All news
Regulation July 30, 2026 4 min

Netherlands and Poland: two authorities that raised the bar in 2026

The Dutch AP names transparency, tracking and cookies as priorities; Poland's UODO shifts inspections towards SMEs. Two markets where the external DPO is worth more than before

TL;DR for the DPO

Two historically different authorities converge: the Netherlands focuses on transparency, tracking and cookies; Poland widens inspections to SMEs. The common theme is that the advisory phase is over in both countries.

The three points that matter

  • Netherlands: the AP has increased resources and staff and publishes its supervisory priorities on its website. That is the first place to look to understand where enforcement will concentrate, and it works as a method for any authority: declared priorities are public information that almost nobody reads.
  • Poland: inspections are moving towards SMEs. That is the segment which typically has formal documentation but misaligned processes: notices updated and consents collected, but no checks on suppliers or on the legal basis of flows to third parties.
  • In both countries the impact assessment duty is self-executing: Article 35 requires it BEFORE processing begins where the risk is high. It is not a duty triggered by an inspection, and it is precisely the sequence in time that is most often challenged.

What to do now, in practice

1) For clients present or with users in the Netherlands: the priority check is the cookie banner and tracking before consent, using the checks already described in earlier analyses; 2) for Poland: if the client is an SME, the typical weak point is not the documentation but the supplier chain - Art. 28 agreements, sub-processors, transfers; 3) generally, when entering a new market, the first useful read is the document in which the national authority states its priorities for the year: it is free, public, and tells you where they will look.

Why it matters for those working in Italy

Even staying in Italy, these two cases show a trend that concerns everyone: European authorities are moving from a phase of accompanying organisations to one of sanctioning them, and they are doing so on basic obligations, not sophisticated questions. The cookie banner, the supplier chain and the DPIA done before rather than after are the three things challenged everywhere, under different names.

Official source:Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens - sanctions and supervisory priorities published on the authority's website; Urzad Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO) - 2026 inspection orientations

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.

Start free

Related articles

Regulation
nullathe decision on a worker taken by the algorithm alone, from 23 October

A dismissal decided by the algorithm is void: from 23 October in Italy

Published in Official Gazette no. 234 of 8 October 2026 and in force since 23 October, decree no. 179/2026 provides that final decisions on the employment relationship cannot be based solely on automated processing, that the worker may request an understandable explanation, and that decisions taken in breach are void. In parallel, AI systems affecting work organisation enter the risk assessment under Article 28 of decree 81/2008. For a DPO this is the rare case where the consequence is not economic but civil, and it changes how the check is framed.

Oct 08, 2026New 8 min
Regulation
3signals that make notification due

Poland's UODO: not every breach must be notified. Public-register data on one side, PESEL, health and financial data on the other

If an invoicing system leaks only a sole trader's name, business name, tax number and registered address, already public in the business register, risk is normally unlikely. If it also leaks the national ID number, purchase details revealing health, or financial data, notification is due. Either way, the decision goes into the internal register.

Oct 05, 2026 5 min
Regulation
120days to charge you, not to fine you

The 120 days are not the deadline to fine you: they are the deadline to charge you

Anyone who built an appeal on the authority's delay should re-read the calendar. The Court clarifies three things: the complaint procedure and the sanctioning procedure are autonomous, so overrunning the nine-to-twelve months on the complaint does not extinguish the power to fine; the 120 days are for notifying the charge, not for imposing the fine; and they run from the «definitive finding», which is not the first notice but the moment the authority can assess every element — including the hearing of your side. After the charge, only the five-year limitation period remains.

Sep 20, 2026 7 min