In a decision dated 27 February 2020, the French Administrative Court of Marseille invalidated the deliberation of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Regional Council which allowed to set up, on an experimental basis, a facial recognition mechanism in two high schools in order to (i) better control and speed up entry of students into the high schools and (ii) control access to premises of occasional visitors. This decision is important as this is the first administrative court decision in France about facial recognition.
The European Court of Justice recently published plans to issue its much awaited decision in CJEU case C-311/18 on July 16. The ruling will impact how organizations lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to jurisdictions not providing an “adequate” level of data protection in accordance with the GDPR. The ruling will specifically address the validity of the European Commission’s standard contractual clauses and it may also affect operation of the EU-US Privacy Shield. On May 18, the European Data Protection Board published a report on its 2019 activities that may signal whether it plans to influence further development of this area.
Updated versions of the UK model Clinical Trial Agreement and the Clinical Research Organisation model Clinical Trial Agreement have been published. Given the increasing importance of safe but swift clinical trials in the time of coronavirus, this post outlines the main changes introduced from a data protection perspective and what they mean for contracting parties.
The French Data Protection Authority has recently released new guidelines (French only) regarding human resources processing operations. When the GDPR became effective, the CNIL’s previous set of HR Data guidelines became out of date as they did not incorporate new law’s requirements (e.g. obligations relating to records of processing activities and Data Protection Impact Assessments). These new guidelines replace several older HR guidelines issued by the CNIL, including and in particular the well-known Simplified Norm NS-46 and the Notification Exemption for payroll, both of which are no longer applicable.
Data protection authorities from around the world are stepping in to provide their input and guidance on the matter of data processing activities and the fight against the coronavirus. Hogan Lovells’ global Privacy and Cybersecurity team has compiled the guidance from various European authorities, which we are making available with this post.
On January 17, The Belgian Data Protection Authority published Recommendation no 01/2020 providing Guidance on direct marketing. The Recommendation provides a methodology on how to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation when conducting direct marketing.
The French Data Protection Authority published new Guidelines on December 10, 2019 applicable to whistleblowing schemes, following a public consultation process. The Guidelines replace the former Single Authorization AU-004, which has not applied since arrival of the General Data Protection Regulation. The CNIL has also published a useful Frequently Asked Questions webpage regarding the Guidelines. The CNIL’s new Guidelines import certain aspects of its former position on whistleblowing schemes.
Does the GDPR really apply to my company? From a data protection standpoint, this is the first thing that comes to mind within non-EU companies. In many cases, the GDPR seems like an issue of the Old Continent, so it does not affect non-EU companies. In others, companies apply the GDPR to all their processing activities just to avoid the possibility of being addressed by EU authorities. Neither decision is per se correct.
On October 17, the Spanish data protection authority published the Guide to Privacy by Design. While Privacy by Design first became a legal requirement in the EU with implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation, it is a well-known concept among privacy professionals that dates back to the 1990s. PbD should be construed as “the need to consider privacy and the principles of data protection from the inception of any type of processing.” It is a concept focused on risk management and accountability that aims to incorporate privacy protections throughout the life cycle of systems, services, products, and processes. It involves the application of measures for privacy protection among all business processes and practices associated to personal data.
Anonymisation has always been (and still is) a real challenge for those carrying out clinical research. To shed some light on this matter, the Medical Research Council – which is part of UK Research and Innovation – has recently published guidance on Identifiability, anonymisation and pseudonymisation. Although the guidance itself states that it has been developed with the participation of the Information Commissioner’s Office, it is not ICO-approved and so institutes and organisations should be cautious when relying on the criteria set out in the guidance.
On 1 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a crucial decision impacting the way that consent is obtained on the internet. The judgment relates to Case C-673/17. In the Planet49 case, the German Federal Court referred a number of questions to the CJEU regarding the validity of consent to cookies placed by a website operating an online lottery.
On 9 July 2019 the UK data protection authority updated its Data Sharing Code of Practice (first published in 2011). On the same day, the ICO also announced its intention to fine Marriott International just over £99m for infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation, highlighting the importance of due diligence in the context of data sharing.
On 19 July the French Data Protection Authority published new guidelines on cookies and trackers. These replace the existing Recommendation No. 2013-378 of 5 December 2013, are intended to be in line with relevant GDPR provisions and have been produced in anticipation of the future ePrivacy Regulation. The guidelines will be supplemented, at a later stage, with sectoral recommendations setting out practical methods for obtaining consent. These sectoral recommendations will be included in a final version of the guidelines on cookies and trackers open for public consultation, which will then be subject to final adoption by the CNIL (expected early 2020).
In the wake of a recent announcement by a major Dutch bank that it would start providing its customers with personalized advertisements based on their spending patterns, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has sent a letter to all Dutch banks urging them to thoroughly review their direct marketing practices. The DPA specifically asked any bank contemplating the use of transaction data for direct marketing to reconsider. In its analysis, the DPA may have introduced a very onerous obligation to re-collect personal data for every single use.
As companies continue to grapple with interpreting how the GDPR’s principles apply to their own businesses, in particular contexts, there is a growing need for data protection regulators to provide clarity on the practical application of the regulation. In the UK, the Information Commissioner has recently taken steps to address these concerns through the announcement of a ‘Regulatory Sandbox’.
On 8 July 2019, the UK data protection authority issued a notice of its intention to fine British Airways GBP 183.39 million (approx. USD 229.46 million) for infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation. The proposed fine relates to a data breach in which personal data of approximately 500,000 customers were compromised.
On 2 July 2019, Hogan Lovells’ Amsterdam office will host the in-person seminar “Protect Your Data!” This English-language seminar follows a popular Dutch-language edition of the seminar. Joke Bodewits and Ruud van der Velden will discuss recent EU legislation, and focus on “lessons learned” for companies with respect to privacy, cybersecurity, and trade secrets. The in-person seminar is of interest to in-house counsel, in-house patent attorneys, privacy officers, CISO’s and IT managers.
Clinical trials in the EU include the collection of sensitive health data from patients. Trial sponsors are obliged to reconcile their respect of regulations governing data protection with regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials. The GDPR¹ could not fully harmonize these rules since this area is already heavily regulated by public health regulations that vary between EU Member States. One of the most disconcerting areas of divergence between EU Member States is the different national positions on whether patient consent is a valid legal ground for processing personal data in clinical trials.
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office in Poland imposed a fine amounting to PLN 943,470 for failing to fulfil the company’s transparency obligations towards over six million data subjects under Article 14 of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation. This is the first fine imposed by the Polish DPA under the GDPR and Poland’s Act on Personal Data Protection of 10 May 2018 implementing the GDPR. The decision provides some limited insights into the interpretation of the term “disproportionate effort” within the meaning of Article 14(5)(b) of the GDPR.
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.
On 14 March 2019, the Dutch data protection authority announced its fining structure for violations of the European General Data Protection Regulation and the Dutch law implementing the GDPR.
Many companies have been struggling with GDPR implementation over the past two years, putting much effort into new roles, privacy concepts, and workflows. Now that the dust of the immediate GDPR compliance rush is settling, the first details of fines imposed under the GDPR and the number of cases pending with Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) in Europe are being made public. In Germany, DPAs are investigating a broad range of non-compliance issues and showing a tendency toward increasing their enforcement activities, to the point that we expect an announcement of increasing GDPR sanctions and fines in Germany in the near future.
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.