THE PRIVACYPERFECT BLOG

On the 13th of January, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Michal Bobek delivered his opinion in case between Facebook and the Belgian Data Protection Authority - Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (Case C-645/19). 

The opinion follows after the Belgian Data Protection Authority went to court against Facebook for collecting information on the surfing behavior of internet users in Belgium through cookies. The Court of Appeal of Brussels decided to question the CJEU whether the Belgian DPA could indeed start legal proceedings against Facebook.

So, you have a website, or maybe you want to have one for yourself or for your company.
Of course you want to make sure you are sticking to the law and protect the privacy of your visitors - you want to make sure your website is GDPR compliant. But you don’t want to read a book (or, god forbid - the Law!) on the matter. We’ve got your back. This is what you need to know.

The Belgian Data Protection Authority (GBA) announced, on 1 December 2020, that it has agreed on a protocol with DNS Belgium, the non-profit organisation responsible for managing the .be top level domain, as well as .brussels and .vlaanderen.

The protocol will allow the parties to make unavailable any .be websites which violate the GDPR, in a quicker and more efficient manner. 

16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield in the Schrems II case, making most EU-US data transfers illegal overnight. The Court has also provided clarification on some extensive hurdles for using its most obvious alternative, Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC). Organizations have to:

On Dec 31st, 2020, the clock strikes zero for the Brexit transition period. Unless the EU and UK can strike a deal on privacy within the limited time that is left, the UK will become a third country for the member states of the European Economic Area. This has several consequences in the area of privacy. To help you during this time of uncertainty, we have compiled a checklist with things you need to check before the deadline. 

France's data protection supervisor, the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés, (CNIL) announced on 1 October it’s amended guidelines on cookies and other trackers (‘trackers’) and it’s final non-binding recommendations. The CNIL amended it’s guideline after the French Council of State, the Conseil d’État, determined the ban on cookie walls in the previous version (dated 4 July 2019) was not valid. Publication of the guidelines and recommendations is highly relevant for organisations having an online presence in France, or whose websites are accessible in France.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) has recently approved the “Data Pro Code”,  the first code of conduct approved by the Dutch DPA under the GDPR.  The code was drafted by industry trade association of the Dutch digital sector, NLdigital, composed of 600 members, including SMEs and tech giants, and is intended to help companies in the ICT sector to comply with the obligations laid down in the EU privacy regulation.

In the ground-breaking judgement of DPC v Facebook Ireland & Schrems, also known as Schrems 2.0,  the Court of Justice of the EU declared the European Commission's EU-US Privacy Shield Decision invalid, making the majority of EU-US data transfers in violation of EU Privacy law. The reason? US mass surveillance making the level of protection of personal data to the US not “adequate” to that in the EU. While the CJEU upheld the use of Standard Contractual Clauses ('SCCs'), Privacy Shields most obvious alternative, it clarified some extensive considerations that organisations and authorities should assess when they use these model clauses.

...And now

Since then, a lot has happened, but uncertainty remains. Now that the dust has settled somewhat, this blog post aims to clear up some of the uncertainties through an overview of relevant events.

Many European organisations share data with organisations outside the EU, or rather the EEA, with data often being transferred to the US. Most of these organisations, 60% of them, relied on the Privacy Shield as a data transfer mechanism to the US. However, on July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the Privacy Shield, making the transfer of personal data to more than 5,500 US organisations (including the most used software tools) be in violation of the EU privacy law, the GDPR. The reason for invalidation: the law and practice of access to personal data by US intelligence services means that the protection of personal data by EU standards does not have an adequate level of protection.

Veel Europese organisaties delen gegevens met organisaties in landen buiten de EU (of eigenlijk de EER: EU en Noorwegen, Liechtenstein en IJsland). Vaak is dit naar de VS. Op 16 juli 2020 zette het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie een streep door het PrivacyShield, waarop 60% van de organisaties die gegevens delen buiten de EU vertrouwt voor wettige doorgifte naar de VS. Dit maakt de doorgifte van persoonsgegevens aan meer dan 5.500 Amerikaanse organisaties (waaronder de meest gebruikte softwaretools) in een klap in strijd met de Europese privacywet AVG. De reden: het recht en de praktijk omtrent toegang tot persoonsgegevens door Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten betekent dat de bescherming van persoonsgegevens naar EU-maatstaven niet een passend beschermingsniveau geniet.