MAILCHIMP. EU Commission adequacy. GOOGLE Analytics transfers. MICROSOFT BAN. TIA - TRA. US EO. TRANSFERS FROM UK. NEW SCCs. BELGIUM. AWS. HEALTH DATAHUB. BCR. Data flow outside the EEA. New EU Art 28 DPA. Adequacy. Privacy Shield. EU - US Safe Harbour invalidated by ECJ. EDPB Releases Final Recommendations on Supplementary Measures for International Transfers. Edpb recommendations 202002 europeanessentialguaranteessurveillance en.
International Transfers of Data. Skip to main content An official website of the European UnionAn official EU websiteHow do you know? All official European Union website addresses are in the europa.eu domain. Opinion 27/2022 on the draft decision of the French Supervisory Authority regarding the Processor Binding Corporate Rules of LEYTON Group 7 October 2022 Publication Type: Opinion of the Board (Art. 64) Topics: Members: France Download Opinion 26/2022 on the draft decision of the Data Protection Authority of Bavaria for the Private Sector regarding the Controller Binding Corporate Rules of the Munich Re Reinsurance Group 30 September 2022 Germany Download Opinion 22/2022 on the draft decision of the Liechtenstein Supervisory Authority regarding the Controller Binding Corporate Rules of Hilti Group 7 September 2022 Liechtenstein Download Opinion 23/2022 on the draft decision of the Swedish Supervisory Authority regarding the Controller Binding Corporate Rules of the Samres Group Sweden Download Download 26 August 2022 Download Ireland Spain.
EDPB adopts Recommendations on the application for approval and on the elements and principles to be found in Controller Binding Corporate Rules. Skip to main content An official website of the European UnionAn official EU website All official European Union website addresses are in the europa.eu domain. During its November plenary, the EDPB adopted Recommendations on the application for approval and on the elements and principles to be found in Controller Binding Corporate Rules (BCR-C). These recommendations form an update of the existing BCR-C referential, which contain criteria for BCR-C approval, and merge it with the standard application form for BCR-C. The new recommendations build upon the agreements reached by data protection authorities in the course of approval procedures on concrete BCR applications since the entering into application of the GDPR. The recommendations provide additional guidance and aim to ensure a level playing field for all BCR applicants.
The aim of these recommendations is to: A second set of recommendations for BCR-processors is currently being developed. We use cookies. EU-US data transfers | European Commission. Commercial sector: ongoing talks on a successor arrangement to the EU-US Privacy Shield The adequacy decision on the EU-US Privacy Shield was adopted on 12 July 2016 and allowed the free transfer of data to companies certified in the US under the Privacy Shield. In its judgment of 16 July 2020 (Case C-311/18), the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the adequacy decision. The EU-US Privacy Shield is therefore no longer a valid mechanism to transfer personal data from the European Union to the United States. The European Commission and the US Government have started negotiations on a successor arrangement to the EU-US Privacy Shield to comply with the judgement of the Court. On 25 March 2022, the European Commission and the United States announced that they have agreed in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework.
On 7 October President Biden signed an Executive Order on ‘Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities'. KORFF The EU regime on data transfers after Schrems II 210422. The GDPR International Data Transfer Regime: the case for Proportionality and a Risk-Based Approach – Privacy Matters. The Schrems II judgment has created significant legal uncertainty and challenges for data exporters across the European Economic Area (the EEA), requiring highly complex assessments of the laws and practices of third countries and risk assessments.
Compounding this challenge, the legal standard to be applied to personal data transfers abroad from the EEA has been the subject of recent regulatory and judicial attention – with European data protection supervisory authorities adopting an absolutist interpretation of the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the context of data transfers under Article 46 GDPR.[1] Member State supervisory authorities have argued that it is not possible to adopt a risk-based approach when assessing transfers of personal data to “third countries”, in essence arguing that transfers are prohibited if the possibility of foreign governmental access gives rise to any risk of harm (however trivial and however unlikely).
Data transfers: A triangle with zero trust, not zero risk? Following the well-known “Schrems II” case in the Court of Justice of the European Union, the policy objective behind recent regulatory interpretations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation transfers restriction is to prevent third-country authorities’ “excessive” access to EU residents’ data. But in this context, what matters more than physical data location is control of logical access to intelligible data. Given the existence of networking and the internet, a person can have intelligible access to data remotely without having to be physically in the same location, or even same country, as that data.
So, what matters most is authorities’ practical ability — through legal compulsion or otherwise — to require disclosure from whomever controls intelligible access, even if that person is in a different physical location from the data concerned and only has remote intelligible access. Globalization and deglobalization Data localization or protectionism? Everything is 'personal data' Personal data transfers to the US - still an issue? | Dentons. The new Standard Contractual Clauses provide European data exporters with clear requirements regarding international data transfers, but the new legal certainty comes with the price of additional assessment and documentation requirements.
Will the upcoming Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework be the easier solution for US data transfers? More than two years after the Schrems II decision, where the European Court of Justice declared the EU-US Privacy Shield invalid (Case C-311/18), European data controllers and processors finally have quite stable legal guidelines with regard to international data transfers—both in general and for the United States in particular. As most such data handlers have US-based business partners or service providers—and such business relations often require the exchange of personal data—the legal privacy developments over the past two years were more than welcome.
New SCCs—structure and application New EU US Privacy Shield in sight? - A practical approach to the new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. US surveillance: s702 FISA, EO 12333, PRISM and UPSTREAM | Fieldfisher. In Schrems II, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") invalidated Privacy Shield based on the potential interference with data subject rights caused by US government surveillance carried out under Section 702 of FISA and EO 12333.
The Court also referred to PRISM and UPSTREAM, two surveillance programs revealed by the Snowden leaks. You can read our reaction to the decision here. This article provides a brief overview of the surveillance regimes referred to by the CJEU in its decision. It does not address all of the surveillance activities carried out by the US government or the laws that govern law enforcement requests (like the CLOUD Act). Section 702 of FISA The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") was enacted in 1978 to regulate US governmental electronic and physical surveillance of communications for foreign intelligence purposes. FISA was originally intended to govern surveillance activities targeting individuals inside the US. PRISM and UPSTREAM. EU data transfers compliance: businesses get fresh guidance. Data protection law expert Claire Edwards of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law, said that businesses would welcome the pragmatic approach taken by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), but highlighted the extensive steps they need to take to satisfy themselves that their data transfers can still proceed in compliance with EU data protection law.
Edwards was commenting after the EDPB published finalised recommendations on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data in response to a ruling by the EU’s highest court last year in the so-called ‘Schrems II’ case. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) judgment highlighted shortcomings with the safeguards in place to counteract US legislation that gives US law enforcement and intelligence agencies powers to request and access data. David Rosenthal. CNIL publishes guidance on data transfers outside EU. Dutch government will stop using Facebook if it doesn’t improve private data handling. NAIH (Hungary) - NAIH-3561-4/2022 - GDPRhub. The Hungarian DPA ordered the operator of a weather forecast website to stop transferring data to the US via Google ad services.
The DPA held that the website operator used Google Analytics without implementing adequate safeguards for U.S. data transfers as required by Article 46 GDPR. On 12 August 2020, the data subject visited a weather forecast website operated by the controller that used Google Analytics cookies. The data subject, represented by noyb - European Center for Digital Rights, filed a complaint with the Hungarian DPA (Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság - NAIH) alleging that the controller had transferred her personal data, including her IP address, to Google Ireland and ultimately Google LLC in the US.
The data subject claimed that, following the Schrems-II judgment, the controller was obligated to stop transferring personal data to the US, as it could no longer base such a transfer on Articles 45 and 46 GDPR. Share blogs or news articles here! Stephan Geering on LinkedIn: #gdpr #schremsii | 18 comments. Public clouds: no precautionary measures. In light of the Federal Administration’s plans to potentially store data in public clouds, a private individual requested that the Federal Administrative Court prohibit this proposal from going ahead. The individual also requested that precautionary measures be put in place.
However, the Federal Administrative Court’s investigations have concluded that there is no specific and direct risk of the private individual’s data being stored in public clouds. The Court therefore rejects the application to decree precautionary measures in its procedural ruling. A private individual requested, among other things, that the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) publish a decree on precautionary measures associated with the potential storage of data in public clouds. Specifically, the requestor called on the FAC to instruct the Federal Chancellery to cease all work relating to the Swiss Confederation’s cloud strategy and to prohibit the storage of data in public clouds. DEFICIENT BY DESIGN? THE TRANSNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE GDPR | International & Comparative Law Quarterly. I. Introduction The EU data protection rules are often touted as the most comprehensive and stringent in the world.
Yet their enforcement offers a different, darker side of the EU data protection story, with suboptimal enforcement leading to a disconnect between the law on the books and its impact in practice. Such suboptimal enforcement was already evident under the 1995 Data Protection Directive (the 1995 Directive),Footnote 1 which preceded the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).Footnote 2 The GDPR was designed to remedy these enforcement deficiencies by bolstering public administrative enforcement and, in so doing, rendering the application of EU data protection more consistent and effective for EU residents.Footnote 3 However, four years following the entry into force of the GDPR, serious questions remain regarding the functioning of this new regime.
The focus of this article is on public enforcement in transnational proceedings. The article proceeds as follows. II. A. B. A. Have your say. Datatilsynet (Norway) - 20/03771 - GDPRhub. Following one of noyb's 101 US transfer complaints, the Norwegian DPA has notified a controller of their intent to reprimand their former use of Google Analytics and consequent transfer of personal data to the US in violation of Article 44 GDPR, as they did not have sufficient supplementary measures in place. Following the Schrems II ruling of 16 July 2020 (CJEU case C-311/18) the European Center for Digital Rights (noyb) lodged 101 complaints to several data protection authorities in the European Economic Area (EEA). All complaints concerned the use of Google Analytics or Facebook Connect on websites in the EEA.
In accordance with Article 80(1) GDPR, noyb lodged a complaint on 17 August 2020 with the Austrian DPA against Telenor ASA (the controller) for their use of Google Analytics on their website and alleged transfer of a data subject's personal data to the US in violation of Article 44 GDPR. As per Article 4(16)(a) GDPR, Telenor’s main establishment is in Norway. MEPs urge European Commission to reject EU-US adequacy. The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs does not want the European Commission to extend an adequacy decision to the U.S. based on the proposed EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. The committee made as much clear in its draft opinion on the EU-U.S. adequacy published Feb. 14. In their opinion, committee members concluded the proposed DPF "fails to create actual equivalence in the level of protection" offered under the EU General Data Protection Regulation and urged the European Commission to only adopt a decision when "meaningful reforms were introduced, in particular for national security and intelligence purposes" on the part of the U.S.
The urging comes after the LIBE committee hosted European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders Jan. 31 for questioning related to the proposed DPF and potential adequacy. "It is important to thereby keep in mind that adequacy does not require that the laws in both countries are identical. " A System of Many Layers with Many Players. The European Data Protection Board is working on its advisory opinion regarding the European Commission’s draft adequacy decision on the EU-U.S.
Data Privacy Framework. We at Privacy Across Borders are working on our own analyses of how well the executive order at the core of that framework—Executive Order 14086—hits the targets of necessity, proportionality, and redress set out by the Schrems II case. But first, it is important to place the Executive Order 14086 within the larger context of U.S. national security law, which establishes a system of many layers with many players. Like the national security laws of many other democracies, this system consists of layers of rules and oversight, with a range of institutions and offices playing overlapping and complementary roles.
In the case of the U.S., the result is both complex and comprehensive. As I point out in the paper, in a democracy, the national security legal framework must simultaneously achieve two vital goals. Like this: Meta's EU data transfer case faces Article 65 dispute resolution mechanism. The fate of Meta's data transfers to the U.S. could hinge on an Article 65 dispute resolution mechanism in the EU, after Ireland's Data Protection Commission was unable to resolve objections from other EU data protection authorities to its draft enforcement decision. Politico reporter Vincent Manancourt originally broke the news, which was then confirmed by the DPC in an email to The Privacy Advisor. "We haven't been able to resolve the objections raised on our draft decision and have to trigger the Article 65 process," DPC Deputy Commissioner, Head of Corporate Affairs, Media and Communications Graham Doyle said.
"We have sent the file to the Secretariat, and once they've completed the administrative work on their end, the Article 65 process will be officially triggered. " The DPC originally sent the draft decision, which would have halted Meta from transferring personal data from the EU to the U.S. through its use of standard contractual clauses, to its EU counterparts in July 2022. Les transferts transatlantiques de données personnelles : quo vadis ? – swissprivacy.law.
Judge Dismisses Twitter’s Lawsuit Over Its Rights to Publish Information About Government Surveillance Orders. Fatal flaw? Data subject rights and the draft EU-US Data Privacy Framework - CITIP blog. EU Moves US Data Transfer Pact Closer To Finish Line. International transfers. Politico. Digital Bridge: Global Twitter — Three ‘I’s of social media — EU-US data pact. Tara TAUBMAN-BASSIRIAN LLM on LinkedIn: The Challenge of Data Transfer to the...
American data spies will never care where the servers are. Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe - Kein Ausschluss aus Vergabeverfahren wegen Einbindung der luxemburgischen Tochtergesellschaft eines US-amerikanischen Unternehmens als Hosting-Anbieterin. David Heinemeier Hansson. Question n°971 - Assemblée nationale. Siecledigital. Youtube. ‘Schrems II’ & the EU-US DPF: Stakeholders volley (IAPP Europe Data Protection Congress 2022) EU deadline looms for data transfer contracts remediation. Des acteurs européens du cloud déposent une nouvelle plainte contre Microsoft à Bruxelles.