July is set to be a busy month in Luxembourg. On the first and second of the month, the General Court of the European Union (which is part of the Court of Justice of the European Union) will hear a case against the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield brought by three French NGOs, La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network and Fédération FDN. A week later, on 9 July, the CJEU will hear arguments in Schrems II, in which the Irish High Court has referred 11 questions relating to whether the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses provide an adequate level of protection for personal data which is transferred to the US.
Following the one-year anniversary of the coming into effect of the GDPR, Hogan Lovells’ Privacy and Cybersecurity practice has prepared summaries of key GDPR-related developments of the past 12 months. The summaries cover regulatory guidance, enforcement actions, court proceedings, and various reports and materials.
It’s no secret that a hot topic, perhaps the hot topic, in the European data protection world at present is the interplay between the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive, in particular how it affects online advertising involving cookies. The European Data Protection Board recently released an opinion on this topic, and on 21 March the Court of Justice of the European Union released Advocate-General Szpunar’s opinion in the case of Planet49, which discusses the requirements for valid consent, in the context of both cookies under the e-Privacy Directive and more general data processing under the GDPR.
Article 83 of the GDPR provides for two levels of administrative fines: a lower level – maximum of €10 million or 2% of the global turnover – for violations relating to record-keeping, data security, data protection impact assessments, data protection by design and default, and data processing agreements; and a higher level – maximum of €20 million or 4% of the global turnover – for violations relating to data protection principles, the legal basis for processing, information to data subjects, the prohibition of processing sensitive data, denial of data subjects’ rights, and data transfers to non-EU countries.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation is now a fully functioning six-month old creature, which has brought with it significant evolutionary changes. One of the most notable innovations of the new European data protection framework is its ambitious extra-territorial application. The introduction of brand new grounds for the applicability of the law was a major development. As a result, and as essential as this is, the GDPR’s territorial scope of application has become one of the most difficult issues to pin down. Therefore, the publication of the European Data Protection Board’s draft guidelines on the territorial scope of the GDPR marks an important milestone in understanding the implications of this influential framework.
Making predictions for the year ahead is possibly as desirable as unreliable. In a world of unlimited data and advanced science, it would be tempting to think that the future is already written. Algorithms and artificial intelligence will show us what lies ahead with immaculate accuracy. Or perhaps not. At least not yet. To say that the world is in turmoil is an understatement and the same is true of the world of privacy and data protection, which makes predicting the future particularly tricky. But since the urge to plan, budget and prepare for what is likely to happen next is so real, now is a good time to pause, reflect about what’s going on, and make some predictions for 2018.
Hot on the heels of the European Commission’s official review of the functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, the Article 29 Working Party of EU data protection regulators has issued its own report on the matter. The summary of findings by the Working Party, which draws from both written submissions and oral contributions, begins by commending U.S. authorities for their efforts in establishing a procedural framework to support the operation of Privacy Shield but quickly shifts to the Working Party’s concerns. Should the concerns not be addressed by the time of the second joint review, the Working Party notes that its members will “take appropriate action,” including bringing a Privacy Shield adequacy decision to national courts for reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
The European Court of Human Rights decided on June 22, 2017 that France’s DNA database for convicted criminals disproportionately interferes with individuals’ privacy rights because of its one-size-fits-all retention period and the failure to include a procedure to request erasure.
In yet another key case dealing with the balance between citizens’ privacy and the ability of the state to intrude into it, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the compatibility with European Union law of legislation that authorises the retention of communications data, which includes personal data. The reference from the UK Court of Appeal resulted from a challenge to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 brought by individuals that include Tom Watson, deputy leader of the Labour Party and represented by Liberty. Interveners include the Law Society of England and Wales, the Open Rights Group, and Privacy International. The CJEU considered the compatibility of such legislation with the e-Privacy Directive, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—which protect private and family life and personal data respectively—and its previous decision in C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland—which invalidated the Data Retention Directive.
Ever since the first draft of the EU-US Privacy Shield framework was published in early 2016, groups opposed to the idea have indicated their intent to challenge the legality of the framework under EU law. Recently, the privacy advocacy group Digital Rights Ireland made good on that promise. Following the filing of a formal complaint on 15 September asking for an annulment of the framework by the Court of Justice of the European Union, DRI has now made public the details of its complaint.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that dynamic IP addresses are capable of constituting personal data under certain circumstances, ending years of speculation about whether such essential building blocks of the Internet qualified for protection under the EU Data Protection Directive. In Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Breyer challenged the collection and use of dynamic IP addresses from websites run by the German Federal Government. The CJEU decided that in circumstances where a third party holds information which might likely be used to identify the user of a website when put together with the dynamic IP addresses held by the provider of that website, those IP addresses constitute personal data. In this blog post, we explore the decision in Breyer, which may impact the laws and concept of personal data of Member States beyond Germany.
On 12 July 2016, the European Commission issued its much awaited “adequacy decision” concerning the Privacy Shield framework for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. This adequacy decision is based on the latest version of the Privacy Shield, which was further negotiated and revised following the Article 29 Working Party’s April 2016 concerns with the terms of the original Privacy Shield framework. Many of our clients have questions about Privacy Shield—what it is, when it will be available for use, and how it differs from other data transfer mechanisms, among others. We have prepared blog post to answer these questions about the updated version of Privacy Shield and its implications for companies engaging in trans-Atlantic data flows.
One of Harry Houdini’s most difficult tricks consisted of escaping from a nail-fastened and rope-bound wooden crate with manacles on his hands and feet, while submerged in New York’s East River. That feat is starting to look straightforward when compared to the prospect of lawfully exporting personal data out of the European Union. The restrictions on transfers of data to jurisdictions that do not provide an adequate level of protection have been in place for more than 20 years. And while these restrictions have not prevented the development of the digital economy, judging by this issue’s current direction of travel, we could be facing a situation from which not even the great Houdini could escape.
Part 2 of Future-Proofing Privacy: Scope of the Application of the Law. It is absolutely crucial for organisations to know if they are or are not subject to the Regulation. Since the Regulation strengthens data protection principles, requires organisations to demonstrate compliance and ushers in greater enforcement powers for regulators, it is essential for all organisations, public and private, local, national or global, to understand in what circumstances the Regulation will apply to their use of personal data. Unlike EU ‘directives’, EU ‘regulations’ are by nature directly effective in EU Member States and so do not require further implementation into national laws. Previously, European data protection law was governed by the Data Protection Directive. It was the responsibility of Member States to implement the Data Protection Directive into their national law. When the Regulation becomes law, it will apply immediately throughout the EU due to its direct effect. As a consequence, national data protection acts will cease to be relevant for all matters falling within the scope of the Regulation.
Unveiled February 29, 2016, the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield attempts to address the shortcomings of the Safe Harbor arrangement identified originally by the European Commission and later by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Schrems decision. The Privacy Shield proposes improved data protection principles, better enforcement by the US Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission, redress mechanisms for EU citizens, and safeguards surrounding law enforcement and intelligence activities. The European Parliament adopted a resolution on May 26, 2016 praising the progress made, but highlighting shortcomings in the Privacy Shield as presented in February 2016. Now that the Irish Data Protection Controller has referred another data transfer mechanism known as Standard Contractual Clauses to the courts for review of their adequacy, greater focus will be placed on whether the criticisms of Privacy Shield are well founded.
In a thorough legal analysis of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, a report from Hogan Lovells says the framework would stand up in the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the true level of data protection afforded by the Privacy Shield framework will only be demonstrated by its functioning and the practices of its participants.
On February 29, 2016 and after more than two years of negotiations with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the European Commission released its draft Decision on the adequacy of the new EU–U.S. Privacy Shield program, accompanied by new information on how the Program will work. The Privacy Shield documentation is significantly more detailed than that associated with its predecessor, the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor, as it describes more specifically the measures that organizations wishing to use the Privacy Shield must implement. Importantly, the Privacy Shield provides for additional transparency and processes associated with U.S. government access to the personal data of EU individuals.
It’s close to 7pm on a Friday evening and my team are trying their best to manage our clients’ stress and frantic desperation. Jokes about how much they love Max Schrems are shared by email. In the meantime, we are diligently working our way through endless charts of dataflows and attempting to cover every single […]
The roller coaster of developments affecting the Safe Harbor framework shows no signs of slowing down. It has taken a couple of years since Edward Snowden’s revelations for the train to reach to its highest point, but once the European Court of Justice ruled on the Schrems case, we knew it would be a bumpy ride. In the past weeks, most of the attention has focused on the EU data protection authorities, which are now more emboldened than ever and keen to capitalize on the ECJ’s decision to tighten the regime affecting international dataflows. The European Commission’s communication of 6 November to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, coupled with its practical guidance, represents yet another turn in this uncertain journey. At the same time, the Commission’s intervention is helpful in terms of the decision-making process that many organisations—for which transatlantic transfers are vital—are trying to grapple with.
On November 6, 2015, the European Commission issued its widely anticipated Communication to the European Parliament and Council about the effect of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Schrems decision, which invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework. The Commission expresses a commitment to negotiate with the U.S. Government a new framework for cross-border transfers of personal data. The Commission also emphasizes that the Communication does not have binding legal effect, but concludes that companies should rely on “alternative tools” for authorizing data flows to third countries like the United States.
In a recent column for The New York Times, Nils Muiznieks, the top human rights official for the Council of Europe, warned that recent surveillance laws in Europe undermine fundamental rights for European citizens. Plus, an October 29, 2015, resolution of the European Parliament complains of an “obvious downward spiral” resulting from mass surveillance laws in the U.S. and Europe. That certain European countries have laws permitting mass surveillance is not news to lawyers who follow the matter. In a 2012 whitepaper, we highlighted the broad and sometimes unsupervised powers of intelligence agencies of certain European governments. As Muiznieks’s column states, intelligence agencies are getting more surveillance power, not less. France’s July 2015 surveillance law permits intelligence agencies to scan metadata of all citizens in order to detect suspicious patterns. Other European countries are also broadening surveillance powers to protect against terrorism.
On Tuesday November 3, the Spanish data protection authority, Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, sent a letter all companies operating in Spain that had previously notified the AEPD of cross-border data transfers to Safe Harbor certified companies. The letter warns companies that because Safe Harbor certifications are no longer recognized as valid, they must take steps to ensure that alternative mechanisms are implemented in order to continue transferring data to Safe Harbor certified companies in the United States. In particular, the AEPD is requiring of all companies that received the letter to inform it not later than January 29, 2016 of any mechanisms that have been implemented to ensure adequate protections for personal data transferred to importers in the United States.
National EU member state courts, as well as the European Court of Justice, have struggled for several years to define the scope of application of EU data protection law in individual member states. In a decision that provides important guidelines on the competence of, and co-operation between, national data protection authorities, the ECJ has clarified how data protection law applies in cross-border situations within the EU.
The EU’s Article 29 Working Party issued a statement today on the recent Schrems decision invalidating the adequacy of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor framework, emphasizing that affected businesses should start to put in place legal and technical solutions in a timely manner to meet EU data protection standards. The statement gave a January 2016 deadline for companies to come into compliance with the ruling, at which point EU data protection authorities would be “committed to take all necessary and appropriate actions, which may include coordinated enforcement actions.” In response, we publish here a high-level analysis of the possible options available for companies—including the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, Intra-Group Agreements and other ad-hoc contracts, Binding Corporate Rules, Safe Harbor 2.0, and consent—and the pros and cons of choosing each one.