Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On June 30, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published Recommendations 1/2022 on the Application for Approval and on the elements and principles to be found in Controller Binding Corporate Rules (Art. 47 GDPR) (the “Recommendations”), which were adopted on June 20, 2023. Binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) are a mechanism for transferring personal data to third countries in accordance with Chapter V of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), and must be approved by the relevant organization’s lead supervisory authority. BCRs create enforceable rights and set out commitments in order to create, for the personal data transferred under the BCRs, a level of protection essentially equivalent to that provided by the GDPR.

This is an excerpt from Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) President Bojana Bellamy’s recently published piece in the IAPP “Privacy Perspectives” blog, and are the views of the author.

On January 10, 2023, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth  responded to a call for public comments from the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) regarding their Recommendations 1/2022 on the Application for Approval and on the elements and principles to be found in Controller Binding Corporate Rules (Art. 47 GDPR) (“Recommendations 1/2022”). The Recommendations 1/2022 are intended to bring existing Controller Binding Corporate Rules (“BCR-C”) in line with the GDPR and the Schrems II ruling.

On November 19, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its draft Guidelines 05/2021 (the “Guidelines”) on the interplay between the application of Article 3 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which sets forth the GDPR’s territorial scope, and the GDPR’s provisions on international data transfers. The Guidelines aim to assist organizations subject to the GDPR in identifying whether a data processing activity constitutes an international data transfer under the GDPR, as the GDPR does not define the term.

On December 24, 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in principle on the historic EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the “Trade Agreement”). For data protection purposes, there is a further transition period of up to six months to enable the European Commission to complete its adequacy assessment of the UK’s data protection laws. For the time being, personal data can continue to be exported from the EU to the UK without implementing additional safeguards.

On November 11, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published its long-awaited recommendations following the Schrems II judgement regarding supplementary measures in the context of international transfer safeguards such as Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) (the “Recommendations”). In addition, the EDPB published recommendations on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures (the “EEG Recommendations”), which complement the Recommendations. The Recommendations are subject to a public consultation, which closes on December 21, 2020.

On September 8, 2020, the Swiss Data Protection Authority (the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner, “FDPIC”), announced in a position statement that it no longer considers the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield adequate for the purposes of transfers of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S. This decision follows the July 2020 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case, which invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for EU-U.S. transfers of personal data. This ruling was considered as part of the annual review of the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework by the FDPIC since, as Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it is not bound by the CJEU ruling.

On July 28, 2020, German supervisory authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, the “DSK”) issued a statement reiterating the requirement for additional safeguards when organizations rely on Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) or Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for the transfer of personal data to third countries in the wake of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU”) invalidation of the Privacy Shield Framework. In its July 16, 2020 judgment, the CJEU concluded that SCCs issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, subject to the need to assess whether additional safeguards are required depending on the recipient jurisdiction. In this same decision, the CJEU struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.

On July 22, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) adopted an information note (the “Note”) to assist organizations relying on Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for international personal data transfers, as well as supervisory authorities, in preparing for the end of the Brexit implementation period on December 31, 2020. The Note is provided specifically for those groups of undertakings and enterprises that have the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) as the competent supervisory authority for their BCRs.

On July 24, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published a set of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”) on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. With its FAQs, the EDPB sought to provide responses to some of the many questions organizations are asking in the aftermath of the Schrems II ruling.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as part of its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the Privacy Shield framework on the basis that the limitations on U.S. public authorities’ access to EU personal data were not sufficient for the level of protection in the U.S. to be considered equivalent to that ensured in the EU, and that the framework does not grant EU individuals actionable rights before a body offering guarantees that are substantially equivalent to those required under EU law.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

Hunton’s Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) reports on the top privacy-related priorities for this year:

1.  Global Convergence and Interoperability between Privacy Regimes

Around the world, new privacy laws are coming into force and outdated laws continue to be updated: the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), Brazil’s Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (“LGPD”), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act, India’s and Indonesia’s proposed bills, California’s Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), and the various efforts in the rest of the United States at the federal and state levels. This proliferation of privacy laws is bound to continue.

On September 10, 2019, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) updated its existing set of questions and answers (“FAQs”) on the impact of a no-deal Brexit on data transfers from the EU to the UK and how controllers should prepare.

On June 12, 2019, Hunton Andrews Kurth and its Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) hosted a roundtable discussion in the firm’s Brussels office on the update of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses for international data transfers (“SCCs”). More than 30 privacy leaders joined together to discuss the challenges of the current SCCs and provide their insights on the updated versions. Hunton partner David Dumont led the discussion, while CIPL President Bojana Bellamy illuminated CIPL’s work in this area. The session also featured Cristina Monti, Policy Officer in the International Data Flows and Protection Unit of the EU Commission DG Justice and Consumers.

On May 31, 2019, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP issued a white paper on GDPR One Year In: Practitioners Take Stock of the Benefits and Challenges (the “White Paper”). In addition, CIPL submitted the White Paper along with a separate response to the European Commission’s questionnaire to prepare for the June 2019 stocktaking exercise on the application of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On February 26, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) presented its first overview of the GDPR’s implementation and the roles and means of the national supervisory authorities to the European Parliament (the “Overview”).

The Overview provides key statistics relating to the consistency mechanism among national data protection authorities (“DPAs”), the cooperation mechanism of the EDPB, the means and powers of the DPAs and enforcement of the GDPR at the national level.

On February 20, 2019, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) published a set of questions and answers (“FAQs”) indicating the CNIL’s recommendations, and steps that organizations should take, to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. The CNIL’s FAQs build upon guidance the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) provided in its Information Note on Data Transfers under the GDPR in the Event of a No-Deal Brexit.

At its plenary meeting on February 13, 2019, in Brussels, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted an Information Note on Data Transfers under the GDPR in the Event of a No-Deal Brexit, and an Information Note on BCRs for Companies Which Have ICO as BCR Lead Supervisory Authority.

On November 9, 2018, Serbia’s National Assembly enacted a new data protection law. The Personal Data Protection Law, which becomes effective on August 21, 2019, is modeled after the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On April 11, 2018, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted two Recommendations on the Standard Application for Approval of Data Controller or Processor Binding Corporate Rules for the Transfer of Personal Data (the “Recommendations”). Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) are one of the mechanisms offered to companies to transfer data outside the European Economic Area to a country which does not provide an adequate level of protection for the data according to Article 45 of the GDPR. These Recommendations, in the form of questionnaires, are intended to help BCR applicants demonstrate how they fulfill the requirements of Article 47 of the GDPR.

On January 18, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP submitted formal comments to the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) on its updated Working Documents, which include a table with the elements and principles found in Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) and Processor Binding Corporate Rules (the “Working Documents”). The Working Documents were adopted by the Working Party on October 3, 2017, for public consultation.

On November 20, 2017, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an article on its blog containing advice on applications for Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) to comply with requirements under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). BCRs, which are one of the legal mechanisms available to support transfers of personal data outside the EEA, are codified under the GDPR, prompting a number of companies to explore the possibility of applying for BCR authorization. In its article, the ICO stressed that it will continue to accept applications for BCRs in the lead up to GDPR implementation on May 25, 2018, and beyond, and that the UK’s exit from the European Union, currently scheduled for the end of March 2019, will not result in the cancellation of any of the approximately 40 BCR applications currently being considered by the ICO.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (“CIPL”) recently submitted responses to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC Response) and the CNIL (CNIL Response) on their public consultations, seeking views on transparency and international data transfers under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The responses address a variety of questions posed by both data protection authorities (“DPAs”) and aim to provide insight on and highlight issues surrounding transparency and international transfers.

On October 3, 2017, the Irish High Court referred a legal challenge to the validity of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for resolution. Max Schrems, who had previously successfully challenged the validity of the now defunct U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Program in the Schrems case, had brought a similar claim in relation to the SCCs, and had requested that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) declare that the SCCs do not provide sufficient protection when personal data is transferred outside the EU to the US and thus are invalid. The Irish DPC declined to make such a ruling, but instead referred the case to the Irish High Court, and requested that the case be referred to the CJEU for a final decision on the validity of the SCCs.

On July 18, 2017, the European Union Committee of the UK’s House of Lords published its paper, Brexit: the EU data protection package (the “Paper”). The Paper urges the UK government to make good on its stated aim of maintaining unhindered and uninterrupted data flows between the UK and EU after Brexit, and examines the options available to ensure that this occurs. It warns that data flows have become so valuable to cross-border business that failure to establish an adequate framework could hamper EU-UK trade.

On April 14, 2016, after four years of drafting and negotiations, the long awaited EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) has been adopted at the EU level. Following the EU Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ vote earlier this week and the EU Parliament in plenary session, the GDPR is now officially EU law and will directly apply in all EU countries, replacing EU and national data protection legislation.

On April 13, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published its Opinion on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”) draft adequacy decision. The Privacy Shield was created to replace the previous Safe Harbor framework invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems decision. The Working Party also published a Working Document on the justification for interferences with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection through surveillance measures when transferring personal data (European Essential Guarantees).

On February 11, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the 2016 action plan for the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”). The action plan outlines the priorities for the Working Party in light of the transition to a new legal framework in Europe and the introduction of the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”). Accompanying the statement is a document, Work Program 2016-2018, detailing the tasks of the Working Party’s subgroups during the transitional period between the adoption of the Regulation and its implementation.

On February 3, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the consequences of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the Schrems case invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On January 28, 2016, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) held a special roundtable at Hunton & Williams’ Brussels office to examine the “essential equivalence” requirement for protection of data transfers to non-EU countries set by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU's”) Schrems decision. The roundtable brought together leading lawyers, corporate privacy officers, legal experts, regulators and policymakers to discuss the critical issues and impact of the new “essential equivalence” requirement for global data transfers set by the CJEU, and its relevance to the current EU-U.S. negotiations of a new Safe Harbor agreement.

On February 22, 2016, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”), together with TRUSTe, the Information Accountability Foundation and Information Integrity Solutions, will co-host a workshop on Building a Dependable Framework for Privacy, Innovation and Cross-Border Data Flows in the Asia-Pacific Region in Lima, Peru. The workshop will be held in the margins of the upcoming meetings of the APEC Electronic Commerce Steering Group and its Data Privacy Subgroup in Lima from February 23-27, 2016.

On December 17, 2015, after three years of drafting and negotiations, the European Parliament and Council of the European Union reached an informal agreement on the final draft of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”), which is backed by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

On November 19, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published guidance, including a set of frequently asked questions, to assist companies that are transferring personal data to the U.S. pursuant to the Safe Harbor framework.

On November 6, 2015, the European Commission published a communication and a Q&A document addressed to the European Parliament and European Council on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”), following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On October 27, 2015, David Smith, the UK Deputy Commissioner of the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), published a blog post commenting on the ongoing Safe Harbor compliance debate in light of the Schrems v. Facebook decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. His key message to organizations was, “Don’t panic.”

On October 26, 2015, the German federal and state data protection authorities (the “German DPAs”) published a joint position paper on Safe Harbor and potential alternatives for transfers of data to the U.S. (the “Position Paper”).

On October 16, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the consequences of the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

The APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system for information controllers received a significant boost during the recent APEC privacy meetings in the Philippines when APEC finalized a corollary certification scheme for information processors, the APEC Privacy Recognition for Processors (“PRP”). As we previously reported, the PRP allows information processors to demonstrate their ability to effectively implement an information controller’s privacy obligations related to the processing of personal information. In addition, the PRP enables information controllers to identify qualified and accountable processors, as well as assist small or medium-sized processors that are not widely known to gain visibility and credibility. Combined, the CBPR for controllers and PRP for processors now covers the entire information ecosystem, promising to motivate additional APEC economies to join both the CBPR and PRP systems, as well as incentivizing larger numbers of controllers and processors to seek certification.

On August 20, 2015, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (“CIPL”) filed comments to the Indonesian Draft Regulation proposed by the Minister of Communication and Information (RPM) of the Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Systems. The comments were limited to the issue of cross-border data transfers and were submitted in the form of a new CIPL white paper entitled Cross-Border Data Transfer Mechanisms.

On August 29, 2015, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (“CIPL”) will host a half-day workshop in Cebu, Philippines, on the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) and their role in enabling legal compliance and international data transfers. The CBPR are a privacy code of conduct developed by the 21 APEC member economies for cross-border data flows in the Asia-Pacific region.

On June 18, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published letters regarding the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”) addressed to representatives of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission. Attached to each of the letters is an Appendix detailing the Working Party’s opinion on the core themes of the Regulation.

On June 24, 2015, DataGuidance will host a complimentary webinar on Brazil: Towards Privacy Compliance. The panel of speakers includes Bojana Bellamy, President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams; Esther Nunes, Partner of Pinheiro Neto Advogados; and Renato Leite Monteiro of Opice Blum, Bruno, Abrusio & Vainzof Advogados Associados. The speakers will discuss the Draft Bill for the Protection of Personal Data (Anteprojeto de Lei para a Proteção de Dados Pessoais) that was issued in January 2015. Concepts and provisions in the ...

On May 22, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party published an update to its explanatory document regarding the use of Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) by data processors (“WP204”). The original explanatory document was published on April 19, 2013 and identified two scenarios in which a non-EU processor, processing personal data received under BCRs, should notify the controller and the relevant data protection authorities (“DPAs”) in the event of a legally binding request for the personal data.

On May 29, 2015, Article 29 Working Party Chairwoman Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin sent a letter to APEC Data Privacy Subgroup (“DPS”) Chair Danièle Chatelois, expressing the Working Party’s continued support for the collaboration between the two groups.

On May 25, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) released its long-awaited annual inspection program for 2015. Under French data protection law, the CNIL may conduct four types of inspections: (1) on-site inspections (i.e., the CNIL may visit a company’s facilities and access anything that stores personal data); (2) document reviews (i.e., the CNIL may require an entity to send documents or files upon written request); (3) hearings (i.e., the CNIL may summon representatives of organizations to appear for questioning and provide other necessary information); and (4) since March 2014, online inspections.

On March 24, 2015, the CNIL announced the implementation of a new procedure that will simplify the registration formalities for French affiliates of groups that have implemented Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”).

From January 30 to February 3, 2015, the APEC Data Privacy Subgroup (“DPS”) and its parent committee, the Electronic Commerce Steering Group (“ECSG”), met in Subic Bay, Philippines, for another round of negotiations and meetings. The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams participated as part of the U.S. delegation. The principal focus of the meetings was implementing the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system, developing a corollary APEC recognition mechanism for information processors, related work relevant to cross-border interoperability, and updating the APEC Privacy Framework. The following is a summary of highlights and outcomes from the meetings.

On December 8, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “ Working Party”) and the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) organized the European Data Governance Forum, an international conference centered around the theme of privacy, innovation and surveillance in Europe. The conference concluded with the presentation of a Joint Statement adopted by the Working Party during its plenary meeting on November 25, 2014.

On December 5, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published a Working Document on surveillance, electronic communications and national security. The Working Party (which is comprised of the national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) of each of the 28 EU Member States) regularly publishes guidance on the application and interpretation of EU data protection law. Although its views are not legally binding, they are strongly indicative of the way in which EU data protection law is likely to be enforced.

On November 26, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) released a Working Document providing a cooperation procedure for issuing common opinions on whether “contractual clauses” comply with the European Commission’s Model Clauses (the “Working Document”).

At the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ (“IAPP’s”) recent Europe Data Protection Congress in Brussels, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (the “Centre”) led two panels on the risk-based approach to privacy as a tool for implementing existing privacy principles more effectively and on codes of conduct as a means for creating interoperability between different privacy regimes.

On November 24, 2014, the Polish President Bronisław Komorowski signed into law a bill that was passed by Polish Parliament on November 7, 2014, which amends, among other laws, certain provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act 1997. As a result of the amendments, data controllers will be able to transfer personal data to jurisdictions that do not provide an “adequate level” of data protection without obtaining the prior approval of the Polish Data Protection Authority (Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osbowych or “GIODO”), provided that they meet certain requirements specified under the bill. In addition, the bill amends Polish law so that it is no longer mandatory to appoint an administrator of information security (administrator bezpieczeństwa informacji or “ABI”). An ABI is similar to a data protection officer but an ABI has narrower responsibilities that predominantly concern data security.

On August 6-10, 2014, the APEC Data Privacy Subgroup (“DPS”) and its parent committee, the Electronic Commerce Steering Group (“ECSG”), met in Beijing, China, for another round of negotiations, meetings and workshops. The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams participated as part of the U.S. delegation. The principal focus of the meetings was again on the further implementation of the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system and related work relevant to cross-border interoperability. The following is a summary of highlights and outcomes from the meetings:

On June 6, 2014, Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, outlined the progress that has been made with respect to the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) in a meeting of the Council of the European Union, acting through the Justice Council (the “Council”). In particular, the Council has agreed on two important aspects of the Proposed Regulation.

On April 3, 2014, Markus Heyder published an opinion piece on global privacy interoperability in the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Privacy Perspectives blog, entitled Getting Practical and Thinking Ahead: ‘Interoperability’ is Gaining Momentum. Heyder recently left the Federal Trade Commission to join the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams as Vice President and Senior Policy Counselor. During his tenure at the FTC, Heyder spent a significant amount of time working on EU-U.S. Safe Harbor and APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPRs”) issues.

On March 18, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program focused on some of the recent developments in privacy, including observations from the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology final Cybersecurity Framework and the Article 29 Working Party’s recent Opinion on Binding Corporate Rules and Cross-Border Privacy Rules.

On March 6, 2014 the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published a comprehensive Opinion: Opinion 02/2014 on a referential for requirements for Binding Corporate Rules submitted to national Data Protection Authorities in the EU and Cross-Border Privacy Rules submitted to APEC CBPR Accountability Agents. This blog post provides an overview of the Opinion.

On November 19, 2013, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the second webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program focused on the latest updates regarding the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“Proposed Regulation”), including a discussion of the European Parliament’s recent approval of its Compromise Text for the Proposed Regulation.

On September 9, 2013, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) published its revised guidelines governing the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data (the “Revised Guidelines”), updating the OECD’s original guidelines from 1980 that became the first set of accepted international privacy principles.

As reported by Bloomberg BNA, the South African Parliament passed the Protection of Personal Information Bill on August 22, 2013. The bill, which was sent to President Jacob Zuma to be signed into law, represents South Africa’s first comprehensive data protection legislation.

On July 22-23, 2013, the APEC E-Commerce Business Alliance and the China International Electronic Commerce Center, a subsidiary organization of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, held a seminar in Beijing entitled Workshop on the Online Data Privacy Protection in APEC Region. In addition to delegates from Mainland China, representatives from numerous other jurisdictions were in attendance, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

On June 25, 2013, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Privacy Commission”) and the Belgian Ministry of Justice agreed on a Protocol establishing new rules for the approval of international data transfer agreements.

On June 7, 2013, the Japanese Government applied to participate in the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules program. Japan’s application will be reviewed to verify that Japan has the necessary legal mechanisms to ensure that certified companies can be held accountable. If approved, Japan will join the United States and Mexico, which also are APEC-certified economies, and it is likely a number of Japanese seal programs will apply for certification as accountability agents. Once the requisite elements are in place, Japanese companies will be able to apply for approval of their cross-border privacy rules.

On June 3, 2013, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published an article outlining the importance of binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) for data processors, and describing how to use them.

On May 29, 2013, Hunton & Williams hosted a webinar, A Discussion on the Proposed EU Regulation: Developing a More Creative Approach. Hunton & Williams partner Bridget Treacy moderated the session with former UK Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, Global Strategy Advisor of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams. Richard Thomas discussed the need for a more creative and flexible approach to the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation, with better-defined outcomes and targeting businesses that present the greatest risks. He also ...

On March 26, 2013, the Article 29 Working Party issued a press release on the recent developments concerning cooperation between the EU and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group (“APEC”) on cross-border data transfer rules. A joint EU-APEC committee, which includes the French and German data protection authorities as well as the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission, has been studying similarities and differences between the EU’s binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) framework and APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. The committee’s goal is to facilitate data protection compliance in this area for international businesses operating in the EU and the APEC region, including by creating a common frame of reference for both sets of cross-border data transfer rules.

On March 15, 2013, European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx sent a letter to Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”), with his comments regarding certain aspects of the European Commission’s proposed revised data protection framework. On March 20, 2013, Peter Hustinx was invited to present his comments during a LIBE Committee meeting, together with the President of the Article 29 Working Party, Jacob Kohnstamm.

On February 5, 2013, Singapore’s new data protection agency, the Personal Data Protection Commission, published its first consultation paper (the “Paper”) articulating proposals for a data protection regulation. The Paper outlines the Commission’s positions on three key issues: (1) requests for access and correction; (2) transfer of personal data outside of Singapore; and (3) individuals who may act for others under the Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”). The PDPA was passed by the Singapore Parliament in October 2012 and became law in January 2013.

On January 10, 2013, the rapporteur to the EU Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”), Jan Philipp Albrecht, presented his draft report (the “Report”) on the proposed amendments to the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) to the LIBE Committee.

On December 21, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party issued a press release announcing the launch of Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for processors effective January 1, 2013. This announcement follows the Article 29 Working Party’s adoption of a Working Document (WP 195) on June 6, 2012, which set forth requirements for BCRs for processors, and an application form for submitting BCRs for processors issued on September 17, 2012.

On November 13-15, 2012, delegates at the IAPP Europe Data Protection Congress in Brussels were given insight into how discussions with key policymakers are progressing. As European Parliament rapporteur and Member of the European Parliament Jan Philipp Albrecht aims to finalize the reform of the EU Data Protection Directive by the end of the current European Parliament’s mandate in 2014, this ambitious goal faces numerous hurdles.

On October 15, 2012, the Singapore Parliament passed the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. Though a law has been under discussion for quite some time, this bill was introduced before Parliament only recently, in September of this year. The new law will apply only to data processing in the private sector as data processing by public agencies (or organizations acting on behalf of public agencies) are already subject to internal government rules. Reportedly, the bill will become law in January 2013, enforceable after 18 months, in mid-2014.

On September 27, 2012, the European Commission presented its new strategy on cloud computing, entitled “Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe.” The Commission’s strategy is outlined on a new webpage that includes a communication document and a more detailed staff working paper.

On July 26, 2012, acting U.S. Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank announced that APEC’s Joint Oversight Panel has approved the United States’ request to participate in the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules System. The panel also approved the Federal Trade Commission’s participation as the system’s first privacy enforcement authority. The next step will be for the United States to nominate one or more accountability agents for the panel’s approval. Accordingly, the Department of Commerce will publish a Federal Register Notice in the coming days to provide guidance on how potential accountability agents may seek recognition. Once a U.S. accountability agent has been approved, American companies will be able to submit their cross-border privacy rules to be recognized as meeting the APEC standard.

On June 6, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted WP 195 (the “Opinion”) setting out the requirements for Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for processors. Similar to WP 153, the Opinion lists the requirements to be covered in the processor BCRs application form and the BCRs document itself. The Opinion likely will be welcomed by processors, in particular those that provide large-scale, multinational data processing services.

On May 26, 2012, the United States government submitted its request to participate in the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPRs”) system. The CBPRs system was endorsed by APEC leaders in November 2011. The protocol requires a participating economy to submit:

• A letter of intent to participate;
• Confirmation that a privacy enforcement agency in the economy is a participant in the Cross-Border Privacy Enforcement Arrangement;
• Notice that the economy intends to make use of at least one APEC-recognized accountability agency; and
• A description of the domestic laws and other legal mechanisms to give effect to the enforcement activities related to the activities of the accountability agent, which also must include an enforcement map.

On April 17, 2012, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Alberta and British Columbia released guidance on their expectations for accountable privacy programs as required by Canadian law. The guidance, entitled “Getting Accountability Right with a Privacy Management Program,” discusses the building blocks of a comprehensive privacy program for businesses of all sizes. Although intended for a Canadian audience, the paper likely will have worldwide influence given recent privacy law developments around the globe.

On March 23, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the European Commission’s data protection law reform proposals, including the draft Regulation that is of particular importance for businesses. The Working Party’s Opinion serves as the national data protection authorities’ contribution to the legislative process before the European Parliament and the European Council.

On March 19, 2012, the European Commission hosted this year’s Safe Harbor Conference in Washington, D.C., to address the transfer of data from Europe to the United States. Although it appears the Safe Harbor framework will remain unchanged for the time being, it seems unlikely the United States will be considered adequate, or even interoperable, with the EU for purposes of cross-border data transfers.

• Mending Fences after a Breach Thursday, March 8, 12:15 p.m. Speakers include: Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice, Hunton & Williams LLP; Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection, Consumer Federation of America; and Joanne B. McNabb, Chief, California Office of Privacy Protection.

Shortly before Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, gave her keynote address on binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) at the IAPP Europe Data Protection Congress in Paris, Hunton & Williams co-authored two articles on BCRs with the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”):

In early December 2011, drafts of two legal instruments prepared by DG Justice of the European Commission to reform the EU data protection framework entered interservice consultation. This process will give other Directorates-General of the Commission the opportunity to comment on the drafts before they are formally released as legislative proposals; accordingly, changes to the drafts are likely. Following this comment period, the drafts will enter the EU legislative process, which is likely to take at least two to three years before they become law. It is believed that Justice Commissioner and Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding will formally announce final versions of the drafts at an appearance at the World Economic Forum in late January 2012.

On November 29, 2011, at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) Europe Data Protection Congress in Paris, France, Viviane Reding, Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, provided insight into details of the proposals for the revised EU data protection framework. She focused explicitly on solutions for international data transfers, promoting Binding Corporate Rules ("BCRs") as a solution that can offer a simplified, yet comprehensive, structure for safeguarding international flows of data. Commissioner Reding referred to BCRs as offering the possibility of consistent enforcement and legal certainty, without stifling innovation.

On July 13, 2011, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) signed a Protocol with the Ministry of Justice which significantly simplifies the authorization procedure for binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) under Belgian law.  The Protocol was just made public on the Belgian DPA's website. 

On June 28-30, 2011, the Council of Europe’s Bureau of the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data (known as the “T-PD-Bureau”) met in Strasbourg, France, to discuss, among other things, amending the Council of Europe’s Convention 108.  Convention 108, which underlies the European Union’s legal framework for data protection, is the only legally-binding international convention that addresses data protection.  Amendment of the Convention is thus closely linked to the current review of the EU data protection framework, and many of the same actors are involved in both exercises.

On June 16, 2011, the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union hosted the first day of a high-level international data protection conference in Budapest.  The conference was attended by approximately 150 people, most of whom are representatives of EU governments, data protection authorities (“DPAs”), the European Commission, and other governmental groups such as the Council of Europe.

On June 13, 2011, the Polish Data Protection Authority (Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osbowych or “GIODO”) hosted a conference in Warsaw on the use of binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) for international data transfers.  The conference was notable as the first on this topic in Poland, and was designed to introduce BCRs to a Polish audience and to promote their use.  The audience of approximately 70 people heard presentations by the Polish Inspector General for Data Protection, Wojciech Rafał Wiewiórowski, as well as representatives of the Belgian, French, Polish ...

On March 16, 2011, a meeting of the “European Privacy Platform” group of the European Parliament was held in Brussels.  The meeting provided important insights into the likely structure and content of proposed revisions to the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC that the European Commission has been working on for the past several months.

On February 3, 2011, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued a press release announcing that it has approved the privacy policy formulated by Deutsche Post DHL.  This allows Deutsche Post DHL to transfer personal data abroad in accordance with its privacy policy without having to obtain approval in individual cases.  Deutsche Post DHL is the first German company to have its binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) approved at the European level, following an extensive consultation process among EU data protection authorities.

On January 17, 2011, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) released a response to the European Commission’s consultation paper, “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union.”  In its response, prepared by Richard Thomas, former UK Information Commissioner and Global Strategy Advisor of the Centre, the Centre calls for a modernized European framework for data protection that addresses the realities of the digital age.

On October 15, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party published an Opinion finding that Uruguay ensures an adequate level of protection within the meaning of the European Data Protection Directive (Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC).

This Opinion was issued pursuant to an official request Uruguay filed with the European Commission in October 2008.  While the Article 29 Working Party’s Opinion is an important step toward adequacy, the European Commission must now make a formal decision that the Uruguayan legal framework provides an adequate level of data protection under EU data protection law.  The European Commission will take the Article 29 Working Party’s Opinion into account when determining whether to issue an “adequacy decision” in the coming months.  As recently illustrated by the adequacy procedure for Israel, this process may prove to be difficult.

On behalf of a group of interested parties (the “Group”), Hunton & Williams and Acxiom submitted a response to the UK Ministry of Justice’s (“MoJ”) recent Call for Evidence on the effectiveness of current data protection legislation in the UK.  The Group is comprised of representatives from more than 40 organizations, including Barclays Bank, Dell, Fujitsu and GE Capital, all of which are committed to using personal data responsibly.  Hunton & Williams and Acxiom, a global leader in interactive marketing services, with the attendance of the Group, worked together over the last two months to host two discussion meetings, and produced a submission summarizing the Group’s views.

On June 18, 2010, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein published a press release and a comprehensive legal opinion on cloud computing.  The opinion provides an overview of cloud computing and discusses various practical and legal matters, including:

• Applicable law issues
• The legal basis for cloud computing and related processor and controller issues
• Problems associated with the possibility of third-party access
• The minimum requirements for data processor relationships and service provider contracts under the new German data protection law
• Technical and organizational security measures
• The legal landscape for clouds located outside the European Union

On June 17, 2010, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2009 (the “Report”) in which it outlines some of its priorities for the upcoming year.

In February 2009, the CNIL published a report on online targeted advertising. Among other things, the CNIL voiced its concern regarding online behavioral and advertising activities and analyzed the risks of increasing user profiling.  In 2010, the CNIL is expected to issue a joint opinion with the Article 29 Working Party on targeted advertising and behavioral analysis.  The CNIL also will open a dialogue with several stakeholders from the marketing sector to work on adopting a code of best practices.

On December 1, 2009, the Article 29 Working Party adopted a contribution (the “Contribution”) to the Consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to the protection of personal data (the “Consultation”).  The Consultation was launched on July 9, 2009, to explore the challenges to personal data protection presented by new technologies and globalization.  The Consultation was also motivated by the recent adoption by the EU of the Lisbon Treaty, which will necessitate a reworking of structure of the EU legal framework for data protection.  The Contribution’s thoughtful examination of several important data protection issues makes it one of the most significant documents that the Working Party has issued in recent years.