Safe Harbour Agreement 2015

The Safe Harbor Agreement between the EC and the US Government essentially promised to protect the data of EU citizens if it was transferred to the US by US companies. Now that the 2000 agreement has been declared invalid, U.S. companies – including Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft – can no longer rely on self-certification and must each time try to obtain standard contract clauses. These agreements allow the transmission of data outside Europe. On 28 January 2015, at a meeting on the 9th European Data Protection Day, the Conference of Data Protection Commissioners of the Confederation and the Federal States addressed the phenomenon of partners on both sides of the Atlantic, who are increasingly alienating legal cultures and data protection issues. German data protection authorities discussed measures to protect the rights of those affected when transferring personal data from the EU to the US on a safe-air basis, including the initiation of administrative proceedings against the companies concerned. On 28 September 2015, the United States mission to the European Union expressed its opinion on the opinion of General Counsel Yves Bot in the Schrems case. This comment calls into question the allegations regarding the practices of the U.S. Secret Service and the finding that the Safe Harbor is not appropriate. The commentary also underlines the importance of the Safe Harbour for EU and US citizens and businesses, as well as the willingness to work closely with the European Commission to improve the Safe Harbour framework. March 2, 2015: Former U.S.

Director S.-EU and the Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks publishes the “first article I read, the first article I read, the first article to cover briefly and bundig” by the former director of the U.S. S.-EU and the Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks. On 26 October 2015, data protection authorities in Germany issued a joint statement regarding the transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States in general and the Safe Harbour in particular in the context of the ECJ decision in the Schrems case. In addition to emphasizing the independence of data protection authorities and the abandonment of Safe Harbor as a valid mechanism for data transfers to the United States with immediate effect, the most relevant statement also calls into question binding business rules, standard contractual clauses and the consent of the person concerned as a valid means when used without regard to the actual effectiveness of the protection of the rights of the persons concerned. In a two-year-old case, brought by Austrian data protection advocate Max Schrems to the EU Supreme Court, the EUCJ ruled that the European Commission`s transatlantic data protection agreement, which came into force in 2000, was not valid because it did not adequately protect consumers in the wake of the Snowden revelations.