• Binding Corporate Rules ("BCRs") can allow personal data to
move among the entities of a corporate group worldwide. BCRs are not only
binding on members of the corporate group but are also enforceable in the EU.
• Derogations (which include performance of a contract, public interest
grounds, free and informed consent of the individual etc.) may apply but the
Article 29 Working Party (the European Commission's advisors on data protection
matters) considers that due to their exceptional nature, the derogations should
be strictly interpreted.
Role of national Data Protection Authorities ("DPAs")
In its guidance, the Commission also recalls the following two points: (1)
transfers to a third country can be lawfully made only if the data have
originally been collected and further processed by a data controller
established in the EU; and, (2) where the Commission does not find adequacy,
controllers are responsible for making sure that transfers take place with
sufficient safeguards. Compliance with these requirements is ultimately assessed
by national DPAs.
This means that DPAs have a central role to play as they are the main
enforcers of the fundamental rights of data subjects and responsible for
supervising data transfers from the EU to third countries, in full
independence. The Commission invites data controllers to cooperate with the
DPAs, thereby helping them to effectively carry out their supervisory role.
The Commission's guidance aims to clarify under which conditions transfers
of EU personal data to the US can continue but is without prejudice to the
powers of the DPAs to examine the lawfulness of transatlantic transfers. The
guidance does not lay down binding rules and respects the powers of national
courts to interpret the applicable law. Nor does the document form the basis for
any individual or collective legal entitlement of claim.
Although the scope of the Schrems Judgment is limited to the Commission's
Safe Harbor Decision, each other adequacy decision includes a limitation on the
powers of DPAs (Article 3 of the Safe Harbor framework allows national
supervisory authorities to take action to ensure compliance (eg suspend data
flows to a self-certified organisation) but only under restrictive conditions).
There is a high threshold for intervention which the CJEU considers invalid.
The Commission will now prepare a decision replacing that provision in all
existing adequacy provisions.
For further information please email dataprivacy@dlapiper.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment