Article 58: Powers
Praxikon tracks Article 58 (Powers) under the GDPR, alongside the EU AI Act, citing the source for every statement.
What does Article 58 govern?
Article 58 lists what a supervisory authority is allowed to do, starting in paragraph 1 with investigative powers: ordering information from the controller and the processor, carrying out audits, and obtaining access to personal data and to premises and equipment. Paragraph 2 gives corrective powers, from a warning and a reprimand to an order to bring processing into compliance, a temporary or definitive ban on processing, an order to erase data, the suspension of data flows to a third country and a fine under Article 83. Paragraph 3 gives authorisation and advisory powers, such as advising in the prior consultation procedure of Article 36 and approving codes of conduct, standard clauses and binding corporate rules under Article 47. Paragraph 4 ensures those powers are used only with appropriate safeguards, including an effective judicial remedy and due process, and paragraphs 5 and 6 let member states provide that the authority can go to court and can receive additional powers. The article exists to make sure supervisory authorities in all member states have the same effective powers, so that the GDPR is enforced equally strongly everywhere (recital 129), each on the territory of its own member state (recital 122).
Key term: Corrective measure: a decision by the supervisory authority that forces an organisation to do or stop doing something, such as a ban on processing or an order to erase data
Directly affects:supervisory authoritycontrollerprocessordata subjectmember state
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
The supervisory authority can order you to provide any information it needs for its tasks, carry out an audit and request access to personal data and premises (paragraph 1). It can also require you to bring processing into compliance within a set period, to communicate a data breach to data subjects, to stop processing temporarily or definitively, and to suspend data flows to a third country (paragraph 2). Every binding measure comes with safeguards such as an effective judicial remedy (paragraph 4) and must be in writing and state its reasons (recital 129).
Processor
The investigative powers in paragraph 1 apply to you just as much: a processor must also provide information and give access to data and premises. Corrective measures such as a reprimand, an order or a limitation on processing can be imposed on you directly (paragraph 2).
Data Protection Officer
You make sure that information requests from the supervisory authority are answered completely and on time (paragraph 1(a)) and that the organisation knows the possible measures in paragraph 2. In a prior consultation under Article 36 you know that the supervisory authority provides advice on it (paragraph 3(a)).
Data Subject
If an organisation does not comply with your request for, say, access, rectification or erasure, the supervisory authority can order the organisation to do so (paragraph 2(c) and (g)). It can also order that a data breach be communicated to you (paragraph 2(e)).
Compliance checklist
Related recitals
Each supervisory authority should be competent on the territory of its own Member State to exercise the powers and to perform the tasks conferred on it in accordance with this Regulation. This should ...
(129)In order to ensure consistent monitoring and enforcement of this Regulation throughout the Union, the supervisory authorities should have in each Member State the same tasks and effective powers, incl...
Cross-references
More case law, guidelines and fines
In addition to the overview at the bottom of this page: rulings, guidelines and fines that interpret or apply this article, newest first. Each item was checked against the official source.
Case law (6)
- 4 October 2024 · C-200/23 · CJEUAgentsia po vpisvaniyata
A commercial register that publishes personal data is a controller, including for data that were not required. A handwritten signature is personal data, and a brief loss of control over data can be non-material damage.
- 14 March 2024 · C-46/23 · CJEUÚjpesti Polgármesteri Hivatal
A supervisory authority may order erasure of unlawfully processed data on its own initiative, without a request from the data subject and even if the data were collected from the data subject.
- 15 June 2021 · C-645/19 · CJEUFacebook Ireland v GBA
A supervisory authority that is not the lead authority may only take cross-border processing to its national court in the cases where the GDPR gives it competence, and while respecting the cooperation procedures.
- 5 June 2018 · C-210/16 · CJEUDirective 95/46Wirtschaftsakademie
The administrator of a Facebook fan page is a controller together with Facebook. A Member State's supervisory authority may act against the group's establishment on its territory.
- 6 October 2015 · C-362/14 · CJEUDirective 95/46Schrems I
The Safe Harbour decision is invalid. An adequacy decision does not prevent a supervisory authority from examining a complaint about transfers to a third country.
Show 1 more
- 1 October 2015 · C-230/14 · CJEUDirective 95/46Weltimmo
The concept of establishment is broad: a real and effective activity through stable arrangements is enough, even a minimal one. A supervisory authority may examine complaints but cannot impose penalties outside the scope of its own national law.
Guidelines (2)
- 17 September 2026 · v1.0 · EDPBConsultation versionGuidelines 04/2026 on the application of the power to impose administrative fines in relation to other corrective powers under the GDPR
Describes when a supervisory authority imposes a fine instead of or alongside other corrective measures, and how the GDPR criteria are weighed.
- 3 October 2017 · WP253 · Article 29 Working PartyGuidelines on the application and setting of administrative fines for the purposes of the Regulation 2016/679
Describes the principles and criteria supervisory authorities use to decide whether a fine is appropriate alongside or instead of other corrective measures.
Line of case lawTransfers to the US: from Safe Harbour to the Data Privacy Framework
When may personal data go to the US and other third countries?
- Safe Harbour (adequacy decision, invalid) (2000)First US adequacy arrangement, based on self-certification.
- Schrems I (2015)The Court invalidates Safe Harbour; supervisory authorities must be able to examine transfer complaints.
- EU-US Privacy Shield (adequacy decision, invalid) (2016)Successor with an Ombudsperson as an extra safeguard.
- Schrems II (2020)Privacy Shield falls too; standard contractual clauses survive, but with an assessment per transfer.
- Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data (2021)The EDPB sets out how to carry out that assessment and which supplementary measures fit.
- Standard contractual clauses for transfers to third countries (2021)New standard contractual clauses that build in the Schrems II assessment.
- Meta: transfers of Facebook data to the US (2023)Largest GDPR fine to date, for transfers of Facebook data to the US.
- EU-US Data Privacy Framework (adequacy decision) (2023)Third US adequacy decision, with a new redress mechanism.
- Bindl v Commission (2025)First damages awarded for an unlawful transfer to the US, by an EU institution.
- Latombe v Commission (2025)The General Court upholds the Data Privacy Framework; an appeal is pending.
Line of case lawSupervision and fines
Who enforces how, and who can be fined?
- Facebook Ireland v GBA (2021)The lead authority is the contact point, but others may go to court under conditions.
- Guidelines 04/2022 on the calculation of administrative fines under the GDPR (2023)The EDPB sets the method for calculating fines.
- Deutsche Wohnen (2023)A legal person can be fined directly, but only for intent or negligence.
- Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras (2023)Processing by your processor can also lead to a fine.
- Land Hessen (2024)Not every breach calls for a corrective measure.
- Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde v FR (2025)Complaints are only excessive once abuse is shown.
- ILVA (2025)The fine cap follows the turnover of the whole group.
- Regulation laying down additional procedural rules for GDPR enforcement (2025)New procedural rules for cross-border cases, from 2 April 2027.
- WhatsApp Ireland v EDPB (2026)A binding EDPB decision can be challenged directly.
- Guidelines 04/2026 on the application of the power to impose administrative fines in relation to other corrective powers under the GDPR (2026)The EDPB on how fines relate to other corrective powers.
Checked on 5 November 2026
Frequently asked questions
Connections
What connects to Article 58 GDPR
Themes where this returns
The counterpart in the other law
Case law
- Reddit's summary proceedings against the DPA over a penalty order and legal privilege dismissed
2026-03-04 · status not established, Rechtbank Den Haag, voorzieningenrechter
- Interim judge suspends DPA penalty order against Northwave: exhaust powers against the hosting provider first
2024-03-26 · final, Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, voorzieningenrechter (zittingsplaats Utrecht)
- Deutsche Wohnen: a fine on a legal person needs no identified natural person, but does require fault
2023-12-05 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Grote kamer), Deutsche Wohnen SE tegen Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin
- Land Hessen: the supervisory authority need not always fine where the organisation already remedied the breach
2024-09-26 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Eerste kamer), TR tegen Land Hessen
- Schrems II: Privacy Shield invalid, transfers under standard clauses only with essentially equivalent protection
2020-07-16 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Grote kamer), Data Protection Commissioner tegen Facebook Ireland Ltd en Maximillian Schrems
- 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
- Dutch DPA publishes its final enforcement policy
2026-10-30 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Guidelines 04/2026 on when a supervisory authority imposes a GDPR fine
2026-09-17 · under consultation, European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
- Consultation on the Dutch DPA's enforcement policy (April 2026)
2026-04-13 · under consultation, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
Enforcement and fines
- Ten municipalities fined a total of 250,000 euros for unlawful files on Muslim residents
2026-02-03 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Formal warning to the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science not to put the CABR war archive online and searchable
2024-11-26 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
Legislation in motion
- Amendment to the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act: DPA must publish GDPR sanctions from 1 September 2026
2026-09-01 · in force, Wetgever (Tweede Kamer) en Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens