Setting fines, guidelines and the Law Enforcement Directive
Last reviewed:
The WP29 (adopted by the EDPB) and the EDPB's 2022 guidelines steer how fines are calculated. A fine is not a mere mathematical exercise. Minor infringements may draw a reprimand instead of a fine; intentional breaches are generally more severe than negligent ones; a resource shortage cannot legitimise a breach. The EDPB sets a five-step calculation method. The Law Enforcement Directive (LED) mirrors the GDPR's supervision regime for the public-sector law-enforcement community - but without the lead authority concept and without financial penalties.
- Minor infringements (no significant risk to rights, or not touching the essence of the obligation) may be met with a reprimand instead of a fine
- Intentional breaches (authorised by management, against DPO advice, or in disregard of policy) are generally more severe than unintentional ones
- A breach cannot be legitimised by claiming a shortage of resources
- No additional credit for simply meeting the law's requirements, including merely fulfilling breach-notification duties
- Multiple breaches straddling both tiers can be taken at the higher level
| Feature | GDPR | LED |
|---|---|---|
| Supervision regime | Full DPA tasks and powers | Mirrors the GDPR regime |
| Lead authority / one-stop shop | Yes (Arts 56, 60) | Absent (no lead-authority concept) |
| Cooperation & consistency mechanism | Yes (Arts 60-66) | Absent (the related mechanisms do not apply) |
| Financial penalties (fines) | Yes (Art 83) | No financial penalties |
The EDPB stresses the calculation of a fine is no mere mathematical exercise - the circumstances of the specific case drive the final amount, which can vary between any minimum and the legal maximum. The five-step method is structured but not formulaic.
Key terms - quick answers
What is “Reprimand”?
What is “Five-step calculation”?
What is “Law Enforcement Directive”?
Keep going - free
Every study note on this site is free. So are these: