Article 12: Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subjectAI-relevant
Praxikon tracks Article 12 (Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject) under the GDPR, alongside the EU AI Act, citing the source for every statement.
What does Article 12 govern?
Article 12 sets out how you communicate with data subjects about their data and their rights. The information under Articles 13 and 14 and any communication about the rights under Articles 15 to 22 and Article 34 must be concise, intelligible, easily accessible and written in clear and plain language, with particular care for information addressed to children (paragraph 1). The article also lays down the ground rules for handling requests: you facilitate the exercise of rights (paragraph 2), you respond within one month (paragraph 3), you explain why you do not act on a request (paragraph 4) and you do all this free of charge as a rule (paragraph 5). It exists because rights are only worth something when people understand them and can use them easily; recital 58 points to situations such as online advertising where it is hard for people to know who is using their data and for what, and recital 59 asks for practical arrangements so that requests can be made simply, preferably also electronically.
Key term: Transparency: information and replies to the data subject are concise, intelligible and in plain language, so that the data subject can actually use their rights
Directly affects:controllerdata subjectCommission
Praxikon’s reading of the text and the recitals; the official text below prevails.
Official text
Source: EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Official text, reproduced without modification.
What does this mean for you?
Controller
You write privacy information and replies to requests so that a layperson understands them, and even more simply when the information is addressed to children (paragraph 1). You set up a procedure to receive requests under Articles 15 to 22, handle them within one month or extend by at most two further months while stating the reasons (paragraph 3), and when you refuse you give the reasons and point to the complaint with the supervisory authority and the judicial remedy (paragraph 4). If you charge a fee or refuse because a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, you must be able to demonstrate that yourself (paragraph 5).
Data Subject
You can expect information and replies in clear language and, as a rule, free of charge (paragraphs 1 and 5). When you make a request, you hear within one month what has been done with it, or that the period is being extended by at most two further months (paragraph 3). The controller may ask you for additional information if it has reasonable doubts about your identity (paragraph 6).
Compliance checklist
Related recitals
The principle of transparency requires that any information addressed to the public or to the data subject be concise, easily accessible and easy to understand, and that clear and plain language and, ...
(59)Modalities should be provided for facilitating the exercise of the data subject's rights under this Regulation, including mechanisms to request and, if applicable, obtain, free of charge, in particula...
Cross-references
Frequently asked questions
Connections
What connects to Article 12 GDPR
Themes where this returns
The counterpart in the other law
Case law
- Brillen Rottler: even a first access request can be abusive if made solely to claim compensation
2026-03-19 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Vierde kamer), Brillen Rottler GmbH & Co. KG tegen TC
- Dun & Bradstreet: right to an intelligible explanation of an automated decision, trade secrets are no absolute ground for refusal
2025-02-27 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Eerste kamer), CK tegen Magistrat der Stadt Wien, met Dun & Bradstreet Austria GmbH als andere partij
- Council of State upholds 6,000 euro DPA fine for recruitment firm
2024-05-29 · final, Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak
- Interim relief judge: DPA must redact fine amount when giving an enforcement decision to complainants
2024-05-31 · status not established, Rechtbank Den Haag, voorzieningenrechter (kort geding, team handel)
- Council of State: DPA could fine DPG Media for routinely demanding ID copies, fine halved to 262,500 euros
2025-09-24 · final, Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak
Guidelines
- Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679
2018-05-25 · final, Article 29 Working Party, bekrachtigd door de European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
- EDPB and EDPS adopt Joint Opinion 2/2026 on the Digital Omnibus
2026-02-10 · final, European Data Protection Board en European Data Protection Supervisor
Enforcement and fines
- 10 million euro fine for Uber over unclear retention and transfer information, objection rejected
2023-12-11 · under appeal, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- 6,000 euro fine for Ambitious People Group for ignoring erasure requests
2020-07-30 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Experian Netherlands fined 2.7 million euros for credit scoring without legal basis or information
2025-10-16 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Netflix fined 4.75 million euros for failing to properly inform customers
2024-11-26 · under appeal, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Clearview AI: 30.5 million euro fine and penalty orders for illegal facial database
2024-05-16 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
Legislation in motion
- Proposal: refusing requests that abuse the right of access (Article 12(5) GDPR)
2025-11-19 · proposal, Europese Commissie
- Council: Cyprus Presidency tables negotiating mandate, Coreper vote of 26 June 2026 cancelled
2026-06-22 · under negotiation, Raad van de Europese Unie, Antici-groep (vereenvoudiging) en Coreper
- Commission publishes Digital Omnibus proposal COM(2025) 837
2025-11-19 · proposal, Europese Commissie