• Daria Bulgakova Uppsala University
  • Victoriia Stupnik Kryvyi Rih Gymnasium № 91
Keywords: B2G, sensitive data, a subject to the conflicting rights of others’ data, Internet of Things, cybersecurity


Problem. The value of the Internet of Things (IoT) is the mechanized welding that processes sensitive data in the real-time interface when the sharing of Business-to-Government Data (B2G) provides business capacity for the generated data in the factory of the IoT system to be open for the public partakers. At the same time, the designed approach is suited to govern spatially circulated human characteristics affecting the replication of sensitive outcomes and supporting their fragmentation. The study identifies this problem in the Data Act of the European Union because it permits its operation. Purpose. The authors advocate the actual safety designation. Thus, the research article aims to solve the question of how (sensitive) data – a subject to the conflicting rights of others – can be business-to-government shared on the way to the achievement of safe settings and safe data, and avoidance loss factors of its integrity. Methods. The research applied measures aligned for the secondary use of sensitive data spawned by businesses and illustrated the experience of the Nordic Smart Government (NSG&B). Under this cure, the authors stand for the like-to Nordic cross-border data exchange shapes, and, at the same time, advance incident prevention relevant to the preparation process before as to convey data publicly. To support the argument for such a stand, the authors present the experience of the Taiwanese Tsai et al. v. National Health Insurance Administration case of 2014 and 2017 regarding the sharing of personal health data when the main plaintiff, Tsai, sued the National Health Insurance Administration for permitting third parties to access the National Health Insurance database for research drives on the name of sharing interests. Results. The case study provided would potentially contribute to the practical realization of the sharing of the Business-to-Government data approach in the framework of alike projects such as NSG&B. Conclusions. This research underlines the extent of addressing the sensitive nature of data sharing within IoT designs, mainly in the context of B2G relations. It stresses the condition for bars that prioritize data safety, integrity, and incident deterrence. The discoveries also propose potential implications for policy and regulation, significantly in the European Union.


1. Annex III (2021) to the Proposal for a Regulation on Machinery products, C.O.M. (2021) 202 final.
2. Atzori, L., and others (2010) ‘The Internet of Things: A Survey, 54 Computer Networks 2787, 2788–90.
3. Bulgakova, D. (2023) The Conformity of Cybersecure Hardware for Machinery Products. Europarättslig Tidskrift, 1/2023, 63–78. URL:
4. Commission (2020) ‘A European strategy for data’ (n 9) 15 Towards a European strategy on business-to-government data sharing for public interest: Final report prepared by the High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-Government Data Sharing (E.U.).
5. Communication (2017) 9 final and Commission, ‘Towards a common European data space’, Communication (2018) 232 final. The strategy has started to be implemented with the package proposals, including the Data Act.
6. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (2020) A European strategy for data.
7. Deloitte, Open Evidence, Wik Consult, timeless, Spark, The Lisbon Council (2018) Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/E.C. on reusing public sector information. URL: single-market/en/news/impact-assessment-support-study-revisionpublic-sector-information-directive.
8. Directive (E.U.) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the reuse of public sector information, Parliament and Council Directive 2019/1024/E.U. of 20 June 2019 on open data and the reuse of public sector information [2019] OJ L172/56.
9. European Commission (2019) S.M.E. panel consultation on B2B data-sharing principles and guidance – Report on the results. URL:
10. European Commission (2022) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act).
11. European Commission (2020) Shaping Europe’s digital future – Questions and Answers. URL:
12. European Commission (2017) Synopsis report: Consultation on the ‘building a European data economy’ initiative.
13. European Commission (2018) Synopsis Report – Consultation: Transformation Health and Care in the Digital Single Market.
14. European Data Portal (2020) Analytical Report 3: Open Data and Privacy, at 3.
15. European Data Protection Board (2020) Guidelines 3/2019 on Processing Personal Data through Video Devices, para 74, p. 18.
16. Gaba J. & Estremadura J. (2020) Data Protection of Biometric Data and Genetic Data, 64 (3) ATENEO LAW JOURNAL 960.
17. Gurin Joel (2014) Open Data Now: The Secret to Hot Startups, Smart Investing, Savvy Marketing, and Fast Innovation 9.
18. Ho Ming-Syuan, ShuWei ShiDai de YinSi BianJie: Yi JianBao ZiLiaoKu yu E.T.C. JiaoTong ZiLiaoKu WeiLi (2016) The Rights to Privacy in the Digital Age: The Case of the Health Insurance Research Database and the E.T.C. Traffic Database], 3 Taiwan Hum. Rts. J.1 39, 143.
19. Pailhès, B. (2018) ‘How to define and regulate ‘data of general interest’?’ Enjeux numériques; Richter (n 12) passim.
20. Regulation (E.U.) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (E.U.) № 526/2013 (Cybersecurity Act), O.J. L 151/15.
21. The World Bank (2020) ‘Unraveling Data’s Gordian Knot: Enablers & Safeguards for Trusted Data Sharing in the New Economy.’ 25.
22. TW, Ministry of Health & Welfare (2020) National Health Insurance Administration, National Health Insurance 2019-2020 Annual Report, 9.
23. Verhulst, S. G. and Young, A. (2018) ‘How the Data That Internet Companies Collect Can Be Used for the Public Good.’ Harvard Business Review.
24. World Bank (2021) ‘World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives’, 54 (Washington, DC: World Bank). doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1600-0 Case study:
25. Taiwan, Tsai et al. v. National Health Insurance Administration (2014) 102 NianDu Su Zi № 36, Taipei GaoDeng XingZheng FaYuan which is a Taipei Administrative High Court.
26. Taiwan, Tsai et al. v. National Health Insurance Administration (2017) 106 NianDu Pan Zi № 54, ZuiGao XingZheng FaYuan which is a Supreme Administrative Court.
How to Cite
Bulgakova, D., & Stupnik, V. (2023). THE SHARING OF BUSINESS-TO-GOVERNMENT DATA. Administrative Law and Process, (2(41), 18-37.
Special administrative law