The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Commissioner for Data Protection has issued guidance to DIFC entities on the export of personal data outside the DIFC in light of a landmark data protection ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).… Continue Reading
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015, Norton Rose Fulbright attorneys Marcus Evans, Jay Modrall and Boris Segalis will lead a conference call to discuss the implications of the Schrems case, which invalidated the EU-US Safe Harbor Decision.
This week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that the EU-US Safe Harbor Decision is invalid in Case C-362/14 (the “Schrems” case). This followed a similar opinion from its Advocate General, which also sets out the facts of the case.
The decision will impact businesses that rely on the EU-US Safe Harbor to legitimize their storage in, or access from, the US of personal data that is subject to EU data protection rules. It could affect cloud service providers, companies that use cloud services, intragroup shared services and any other export flows to the US … Continue Reading
As discussed in our post earlier, in today’s ruling on Case C-362/14 (the so-called “Schrems” case), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU Commission’s “US Safe Harbor” decision with immediate effect. In the meantime, the EU Commission held a press conference discussing the impact of the judgement.… Continue Reading
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Case C-362/14 (the Schrems case) earlier today, 6 October 2015. In its ruling, the ECJ – among other things – held that the EU Commission’s “US Safe Harbor” decision is invalid.… Continue Reading
As we have written extensively, the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) ruling in the Schrems case on October 6, 2015 may effectively invalidate the US-EU Safe Harbor framework. While we believe that the Advocate General’s rationale for the proposal is weak, organizations that rely on the Safe Harbor are anxious about the consequences such a decision could have on their operations, and want to make appropriate mitigation plans.… Continue Reading
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is expected to rule on Case C-362/14 (the “Schrems” case) on October 6, 2015. In deciding whether to reject or adopt its Advocate General’s recommendation to invalidate the US-EU Safe Harbor, the ECJ finds itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Rejecting the Safe Harbor would lead to uncertainty in the ongoing negotiations to update the Safe Harbor framework, and raise questions about the interpretation of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation, which is currently being finalized in trialogue negotiations among the EU’s Council, Parliament and Commission. If the … Continue Reading
On September 22, 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) Advocate General issued an advisory Opinion in Case C-362/14 (the “Schrems” case). A key recommendation was for the ECJ to declare the EU/US Safe Harbor Agreement invalid. It remains to be seen whether the ECJ will follow this recommendation. The controversial nature of the Safe Harbor recommendation makes predicting whether the ECJ will follow the Opinion virtually impossible. A possible mitigation of the massive impact on trans-Atlantic trade such a finding would have may be that any invalidity that the ECJ identifies in its ultimate decision is met … Continue Reading
On 25 November 2020, the European Commission (EC) published its proposed Data Governance Regulation (the DGR), which will create a new legal framework to encourage the development of a European single market for data.
This is part three of a series of three blog posts. In this blog post, we consider the DGR’s relationship to competition law rules.
The DGR’s relationship to competition law rules
The DGR specifies that:
- It does not affect the application of EU competition rules – in particular rules on the exchange of competitively sensitive information between actual or potential competitors through data
On 10 August, the European Commission and the US Department of Commerce confirmed that talks have begun between the EU and US for an “enhanced” Privacy Shield.
This will be the third attempt to revise this framework, following the invalidation of Safe Harbor in 2015 and Privacy Shield in July 2020. Third time a charm? We’re not so sure.
By way of recap, in Schrems II, the court made clear that Privacy Shield was invalid for three main reasons:
- US surveillance rules are disproportionate
- There is a lack of proper oversight over US surveillance programmes
- EU individuals do not