Data Protection Directive

Earlier this month, the UK Government published a consultation on plans to implement the EU Directive on security of network and information systems (the “NIS Directive”, otherwise known as the Cybersecurity Directive).  The consultation includes a proposal to fine firms that fail to implement “appropriate and proportionate security measures” up to EUR 20 million or 4% of global turnover (whichever is greater).

We summarise the UK Government’s plans below, including which organisations may be in scope — for example, in the energy, transport and other sectors, as well as online marketplaces, online search engines, and cloud computing service providers — and the proposed security and incident reporting obligations.

Organisations that are interested in responding to the consultation have until September 30, 2017 to do so.  The UK Government will issue a formal response within 10 weeks of this closing date, and publish further security guidance later this year and next.  A further consultation on incident reporting for digital service providers will be run later this year; the Government invites organisations that are interested in taking part to provide appropriate contact details.
Continue Reading UK Government Proposes Cybersecurity Law with Serious Fines

By Dan Cooper and Rosie Klement

On July 26, 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) published Opinion 1-15 (the “Opinion”) on the proposed agreement between the European Union and Canada on the transfer and processing of passenger name record (“PNR”) data (the “Agreement”).  The Agreement was signed in 2014, but the CJEU was asked to determine whether it was compatible with EU data protection law before it is approved by the European Parliament.

The Opinion concluded that a number of provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data – particularly sensitive data – are incompatible with the EU Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46) and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, and the protection against discrimination, under Articles 7, 8 and 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the “Charter”), meaning the Agreement must be renegotiated before it enters into force.

Notably, the CJEU’s opinion was consistent with its recent judgments concerning data transfers to “third countries” (outside the EEA) in Schrems and Tele2/Watson
Continue Reading CJEU: EU-Canada proposed agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Record data does not conform to EU data protection law standards

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), which enforces data protection legislation in the UK, has ruled that the NHS Royal Free Foundation Trust (“Royal Free”), which manages a London hospital, failed to comply with the UK Data Protection Act 1998 in providing 1.6 million patient records to Google DeepMind (“DeepMind”), requiring the Royal Free to sign an undertaking committing to changes to ensure it is acting in line with the UK Data Protection Act.

On September 30,  2015, the Royal Free entered into an agreement with Google UK Limited (an affiliate of DeepMind) under which DeepMind would process approximately 1.6 million partial patient records, containing identifiable information on persons who had presented for treatment in the previous five years together with data from the Royal Free’s existing electronic records system.  On November 18, 2015, DeepMind began processing patient records for clinical safety testing of a newly-developed platform to monitor and detect acute kidney injury, formalized into a mobile app called ‘Streams’.
Continue Reading ICO Rules UK Hospital-DeepMind Trial Failed to Comply with UK Data Protection Law

On March 9, 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) handed down a ruling limiting the reach of its prior “right to be forgotten” jurisprudence, by holding that the right does not prevail over society’s interest in access to official public records of company details required by law.
Continue Reading CJEU Limits Public Record ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

On December 21, 2016 the Court of Justice of European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15, Tele2 /Watson.

The decision considered the legality of UK and Swedish laws permitting the generalized retention of communications metadata (for 6-12 months) for the purposes of prevention, detection or prosecution of crime (not

On July 8, 2016, the draft EU-U.S. Privacy Shield adequacy decision was formally approved by the so-called “Article 31 Committee” of EU Member States (see press release, here).

That approval opens the door for the College of EU Commissioners to approve the Privacy Shield on Monday (July 11).  Once translated and published in the Official Journal of the EU, the adequacy decision will then enter into force.

However, there may need to be an implementation period during which the EU and U.S. put in place relevant structures; it is expected that Commissioner Věra Jourová will provide more details to the European Parliament on Monday, and in a joint press conference on Tuesday with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.

Once that implementation phase is complete, U.S.-based companies will be able to self-certify under the Privacy Shield.  Doing so provides a legal basis which entities in the European Economic Area can rely on to transfer personal data to those Privacy Shield-certified companies in the US.
Continue Reading Privacy Shield Deal Passes Major EU Hurdle

On May 12, 2016, EU Advocate General (“AG”) Manuel Campus Sanchez-Bordona issued an Opinion in Case C-582/14 Patrick Breyer v Germany, which is pending before the EU’s highest court (the Court of Justice).  The Court is not legally bound by this Opinion, but in practice often follows the opinions of its Advocate Generals in its rulings.  See here for the German language version; an English version is awaited.

The AG essentially considered that dynamic ‘IP’ addresses qualify as personal data, even if the website operator in question cannot identify the user behind the IP address, since the users’ internet access providers have data which, in connection with the IP address, can identify the users in question.

The AG went on to consider that the collection and use of IP address data, for the purpose of ensuring the functioning of the website, might be justified on the basis of the “balancing of legitimate interests” test under the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/ EC (the “Directive”), notwithstanding more restrictive national rules in Germany.

If followed by the Court of Justice, the Opinion will have broad implications for EU data protection law, even the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).  In particular, the Opinion will be relevant for any industries that handle de-identified personal data, and re-confirms the limits that national legislators need to respect when deviating from EU-level data protection legislation.


Continue Reading EU Advocate General Considers Dynamic IP Addresses To Be Personal Data

As forecast in our latest blog on the topic (available here), the European Parliament today voted into law a new General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that will replace the EU’s all-encompassing Data Protection Directive as of mid-2018.

Today’s vote brings to a close a legislative process that has lasted nearly five years; the law’s

Following the expected approval of the final text of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in the European Parliament this week, the Commission is now turning its attention towards the ePrivacy Directive.

On Monday (April 11, 2016), the Commission launched a public consultation to review and propose changes to the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC).  (See the