On November 6, 2015, the European Commission published a communication and a Q&A document addressed to the European Parliament and European Council on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”), following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.
In the communication, the European Commission stated that it has intensified its discussion with the U.S. Government and confirmed its objective to finish the discussions for an updated framework for transatlantic transfers of personal data “in 3 months.” According to the Commission, the updated framework must provide sufficient limitations and safeguards to ensure the continued protection of EU citizens’ personal data, including with respect to access by public authorities for law enforcement and national security purposes.
The European Commission also stated that alternative data transfer mechanisms can still be used by companies for lawful data transfers to countries outside of the EU, such as the United States. The European Commission provided guidance with respect to these alternative data transfer mechanisms. This guidance, however, does not restrict the powers and duties of data protection authorities (“DPAs”) to examine the lawfulness of cross-border transfers. The guidance states that transfers may be carried out using alternative data transfer mechanisms, including:
Contractual Solutions
Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), using the sets of model clauses provided by the European Commission. SCCs include obligations for the protection of personal data and allow data subjects to invoke the rights provided them in the contractual clauses before a DPA or a court of the EU Member State in which the data exporter is established. Model clauses are, in principle, automatically accepted by national authorities, with the exception of certain Member States that maintain a system of notification or pre-authorization of the clauses. In addition, companies can rely on ad hoc contractual agreements, subject to approval by DPAs on a case-by-case basis.
Intra-Group Transfers
Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) provide a basis for intra-group transfers of personal data and ensure sufficient protection of personal data throughout a group of affiliated entities. BCRs are subject to an authorization procedure in each Member State from which the group of related entities intends to transfer data. These rules are binding for the group of related entities, but also enforceable in the EU, where third party beneficiaries can lodge complaints before a DPA or a national court to enforce compliance with the rules.
Derogations
Derogations are expressly listed in Article 26 (1) and (a) to (f) of the Directive, under which data can be transferred when one of the following derogations applies: (1) unambiguous consent of the data subject has been obtained; (2) conclusion or performance of a contract, including pre-contractual situations; and (3) establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.
The communication stated that these derogations are strictly interpreted, and that for repeated, mass or structural transfers, companies should use a specific legal framework such as SCCs or BCRs. In addition, according to the communication, the derogation based on the data subject’s free and informed consent is an option of last resort.
The European Commission also identified two important conditions for the use of alternative data transfer mechanisms. First, the Commission stated that data must be originally collected and further processed by the data controller in accordance with national laws implementing the Directive, regardless of the legal basis for cross-border transfer on which the controller relies. Second, the Commission reaffirmed that when using alternative data transfer mechanisms, data exporters and importers still bear the responsibility to ensure that transfers comply with the safeguards set out in the Directive, which should be considered in the context of the transfer.
Although the scope of the judgment is limited to the Safe Harbor Decision, the European Commission will now prepare a decision to replace the provision included in all the other adequacy decisions that limits the powers of DPAs. Further, the Commission will regularly assess, together with the DPAs, existing and future adequacy decisions.
The European Commission also invited controllers to cooperate with the DPAs and stated that it will work closely with the Article 29 Working Party to ensure the harmonized application of EU data protection law.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code