A multinational retailer's legal team is preparing a memo on what changed in legal form when the GDPR replaced the Data Protection Directive in 2018. They want to capture the single most significant change in the type of EU instrument used, because it altered how the rules take effect in each Member State. Which change in legal instrument did the move from the Directive to the GDPR represent?
- AA move from a non-binding recommendation to a binding directive that Member States then had to transpose into national law
- BA move from a regulation that applied uniformly to a directive granting Member States wide discretion over implementation
- CA move from an international treaty requiring ratification by each state to a Commission decision applied centrally
- DA move from a directive requiring national transposition to a regulation that is directly applicable in every Member State Correct
Why A is wrong: This is tempting because it correctly involves a directive, but the 1995 instrument was already a binding directive, not a recommendation, so this mischaracterises the starting point.
Why B is wrong: This reverses the actual direction of travel, which is a common trap; the 1995 instrument was the directive and the 2018 instrument is the regulation, not the other way round.
Why C is wrong: Neither instrument is a treaty or a Commission decision; this conflates separate categories of EU and international law and so does not describe the actual change in instrument.
Why D is correct: The shift from a directive to a regulation is the defining change, because a regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable without national implementing legislation.