(148) 為強化本規則之執行，對於本規則之任何違反，應被處以包括 行政罰鍰等處罰，此不問係外加於監管機關依照本規則實施之適當措 施，或取代該等措施。在僅有輕微之違反，或欲處以之罰鍰會造成對 當事人不相當之負擔，得採用告誡之方式取代罰鍰。然而，仍應就該 違反之性質、嚴重性、持續期間、是否為故意、有無降低損害之行為、 責任程度或先前任何相關違反之程度、監管機關知悉其違法行為後之 態度、命控管者或處理者所為措施之遵循、對行為守則之遵守以及有 無任何使之加重或減輕之因素，為相當之考慮。實施包括行政罰鍰之 處罰，應遵循歐盟法及憲章一般法律原則之適當程序保障，包括有效 之司法保護及正當程序。
(148) In order to strengthen the enforcement of the rules of this Regulation, penalties including administrative fines should be imposed for any infringement of this Regulation, in addition to, or instead of appropriate measures imposed by the supervisory authority pursuant to this Regulation. In a case of a minor infringement or if the fine likely to be imposed would constitute a disproportionate burden to a natural person, a reprimand may be issued instead of a fine. Due regard should however be given to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement, the intentional character of the infringement, actions taken to mitigate the damage suffered, degree of responsibility or any relevant previous infringements, the manner in which the infringement became known to the supervisory authority, compliance with measures ordered against the controller or processor, adherence to a code of conduct and any other aggravating or mitigating factor. The imposition of penalties including administrative fines should be subject to appropriate procedural safeguards in accordance with the general principles of Union law and the Charter, including effective judicial protection and due process.
(150) 為強化及協調違反本規則所處以之行政罰，各監管機關應有權 力處以行政罰鍰。本規則應指出何者構成違反，以及相關行政罰鍰的 上限及裁罰基準，此應由每個個案中之主管監管機關決定之，並考量 該個案情形所有相關之情狀，並適當考量該違反之性質、嚴重性及持 續期間及其後果，及確保遵循本規則所定義務所採取之措施及預防或 減輕該違反所造成之後果。對企業處以行政罰時，企業應被依照歐洲 聯盟運作條約第 101 條及第 102 條所定義之目的為理解。對個人而非 企業處以行政罰時，監管機關在考量適當之罰鍰金額時，應考量該會員國之平均所得，以及該個人之經濟狀況。一致性機制亦得被運用， 以促使行政罰鍰適用之一致性。此應由會員國決定是否得對公務機關 處以行政罰，以及至何程度。處以行政罰或給予警告並不影響監管機 關其他權力之行使，或本規則下其他處罰之實施。
(150) In order to strengthen and harmonise administrative penalties for infringements of this Regulation, each supervisory authority should have the power to impose administrative fines. This Regulation should indicate infringements and the upper limit and criteria for setting the related administrative fines, which should be determined by the competent supervisory authority in each individual case, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the specific situation, with due regard in particular to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences and the measures taken to ensure compliance with the obligations under this Regulation and to prevent or mitigate the consequences of the infringement. Where administrative fines are imposed on an undertaking, an undertaking should be understood to be an undertaking in accordance with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU for those purposes. Where administrative fines are imposed on persons that are not an undertaking, the supervisory authority should take account of the general level of income in the Member State as well as the economic situation of the person in considering the appropriate amount of the fine. The consistency mechanism may also be used to promote a consistent application of administrative fines. It should be for the Member States to determine whether and to which extent public authorities should be subject to administrative fines. Imposing an administrative fine or giving a warning does not affect the application of other powers of the supervisory authorities or of other penalties under this Regulation.
(151) 丹麥及愛沙尼亞之法律體系不允許本規則所規範之行政罰鍰。 行政罰之規範在丹麥得以該國管轄法院裁判處以刑罰之方式行之；在 愛沙尼亞得以監管機關處理輕罪程序之架構處以罰金之方式行之；惟 上開會員國該等規範之適用，應與監管機關處以罰鍰之效果相當。因 此，內國管轄法院應考慮監管機關處以罰鍰之建議。在任何情況下， 處以罰鍰應係有效、適當且具懲戒性的。
(151) The legal systems of Denmark and Estonia do not allow for administrative fines as set out in this Regulation. The rules on administrative fines may be applied in such a manner that in Denmark the fine is imposed by competent national courts as a criminal penalty and in Estonia the fine is imposed by the supervisory authority in the framework of a misdemeanour procedure, provided that such an application of the rules in those Member States has an equivalent effect to administrative fines imposed by supervisory authorities. Therefore the competent national courts should take into account the recommendation by the supervisory authority initiating the fine. In any event, the fines imposed should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.