In its recent Report on the Privacy Shield, the Article 29 Working Party (WP29) recognised the progress of the Privacy Shield in comparison with the invalidated Safe Harbour, and the efforts made by the U.S. authorities and the Commission to implement the Privacy Shield. However, the WP29 identified a number of concerns. Like the European Commission (EC), in its first annual review of the EU-US Privacy Shield, the WP29 called for the appointment of a permanent Privacy Shield Ombudsperson (and further explanation of the rules of procedure including by declassification), and filling the remaining positions on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).  The WP29 requested these concerns to be prioritised and addressed prior to 25 May 2018, when the GDPR comes into force.

The WP29 further called for clear guidance on the Privacy Shield Principles, HR data and onward transfers, and increased supervision of compliance with the Privacy Shield principles.  The US authorities are also requested to clearly distinguish the status of processors from that of controllers both at the time of their self-certification and at the time of further check.  The WP29 demands these remaining issues to be resolved, at the latest, at the time of the next annual review of the Privacy Shield. If no remedies are brought to address the concerns raised by the WP29 within these time frames, the WP29 warned it will bring the Privacy Shield adequacy decision to the national courts for them to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling.

…
Continue Reading What’s the current status of the Privacy Shield?

The EU Council has proposed amendments to the draft ePrivacy Regulation (the Regulation). The Presidency points out that work on the text will be incremental and this is only its first redraft.

Proposed amendments include:

Scope – The Presidency clarifies the precise material and territorial scope of the Regulation, as including:

• the processing of electronic communications content in transmission, and of electronic communications metadata carried out in connection with the provision of electronic communications services to end-users in the EU;
• information related to, processed by, or stored in the terminal equipment of end users located in the EU;
• the placing on the market of software permitting electronic communications, including the retrieval and presentation of information on the internet;
• the offering of a publicly available directory of end-users of electronic communications services located in the EU, and
• the sending or presenting of direct marketing communications to end users located in the EU.

…
Continue Reading EU Council proposes revisions to the draft ePrivacy Regulation

Employee monitoring versus privacy rights is back in the spotlight due to today’s decision by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Bărbulescu v. Romania.  The Grand Chamber held there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, where an employer monitored and accessed personal emails sent by an employee during work hours from his Yahoo Messenger account, using a company computer, without notifying the employee in advance of such monitoring.
…
Continue Reading ECHR rules employees must receive prior notice of email monitoring

The CJEU has ruled (Case C-398/15) that there is no general right to be forgotten in respect of personal data in the companies register. However, upon expiry of a sufficiently long period after dissolution of a company, Member States may provide for restricted access to such data by third parties in exceptional cases. The CJEU’s decision is in line with its ruling in Google Spain (Case C-131/12) that the right to be forgotten is not absolute, and will always need to be balanced against other fundamental rights.
…
Continue Reading No right to be forgotten in respect of personal data in the companies register