On March 6 and 7, 2017, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP and over 100 public and private sector participants in CIPL’s GDPR Implementation Project will convene in Madrid, Spain, for CIPL’s third major GDPR implementation workshop. Continue Reading CIPL to Hold Next GDPR Implementation Workshop in Madrid
On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its judgment in the Schrems v. Facebook case, following the Opinion of the Advocate General published on September 23, 2015. In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that:
- The national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) have the power to investigate and suspend international data transfers even where the European Commission (the “Commission”) has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of data protection, such as Decision 2000/520 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (the “Safe Harbor Decision”).
- The Safe Harbor Decision is invalid.
On February 3, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) published a report on a sweep of 478 websites across eight EU Member States (Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom). The sweep was conducted to assess compliance with Article 5.3 of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by 2009/136/EC.
On November 26, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published an Opinion (the “Opinion”) on the Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González” C-131/12 (the “Judgment” or “Costeja”). The Opinion constitutes guidance from the Working Party on the implementation of Costeja for search engine operators.
On May 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) rendered its judgment in Google Spain S.L. and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Case C-131/12, “Google v. AEPD” or the “case”). The case concerns a request made by a Spanish individual, Mr. Costeja, to the Spanish Data Protection Authority (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos or “AEPD”) to order the removal of certain links from Google’s search results. The links relate to an announcement in an online newspaper of a real estate auction for the recovery of Mr. Costeja’s social security debts. The information was lawfully published in 1998, but Mr. Costeja argued that the information had become irrelevant as the proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years. The AEPD upheld the complaint and ordered Google Spain S.L. and Google Inc. (“Google”) to remove the links from their search results. Google appealed this decision before the Spanish High Court, which referred a series of questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ ruled as follows:
Continue Reading EU Court of Justice Upholds Right to Erasure in Google Search Case
Senior Attorney Rosemary Jay reports from London:
On June 25, 2013, Advocate-General Jääskinen of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) delivered his Opinion in Google Spain S.L. and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Case C-131/12, “Google v AEPD” or the “case”).
The case concerns Google Search results, and whether individuals have a right to erasure of search result links about them. The Opinion concludes that under current law, individuals have no such right. The European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) would introduce a right to be forgotten. However, this Opinion appears to demonstrate unease with the basic concept of such a right.
On December 12, 2012, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) released an accountability self-assessment tool designed to help organizations evaluate their internal privacy programs and practices. The tool is the product of the Global Accountability Project for which the Centre serves as Secretariat.
On November 2-3, 2011, Mexico’s Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”) will host the 33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Mexico City. Marty Abrams, President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP, is the chairman of the Conference’s advisory panel and principal advisor to Conference organizers on program content. Hunton & Williams is a proud sponsor of the event which will feature Hunton representatives as speakers or moderators on multiple panels and plenary sessions, including the following:
On January 14, 2011, the European Network and Information Security Agency (“ENISA”), which was created to enhance information security within the European Union, published a report entitled “Data breach notifications in the EU” (the “Report”).
Currently, there is wide debate throughout the EU regarding data breach notification requirements. The debate stems from recent high-profile data breach incidents and the introduction of mandatory data breach notification requirements for telecommunication service providers imposed by EU Directive 2009/136/EC (amending EU Directive 2002/58/EC, the “e-Privacy Directive”), which must be integrated into EU Member States’ national laws by May 25, 2011. The goal of the Report is to assist Member States, regulatory authorities and private organizations with their implementation of data breach notification policies.
The 32nd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners held in Jerusalem this October continued the trend from past conferences by enacting a resolution, this time with respect to the adoption of global privacy standards. The Jerusalem Declaration calls for an intergovernmental conference in 2011 or 2012 to negotiate a binding international agreement guaranteeing respect for data protection and privacy, and facilitating cross-border coordination of enforcement efforts. The basis for the binding international agreement would be the Madrid Resolution, which was adopted in November 2009.
The Jerusalem Declaration was sponsored by the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) and was seconded by nine other entities, including the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner, the Spanish Data Protection Agency and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office. Despite the resolution, it seems highly unlikely the intergovernmental conference will take place within the proposed two-year timeframe.