Category: Countries
21. January 2022
With COVID-19 vaccination campaigns well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information and, if so, how that information may be used.
COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, whether an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data. However, the question of whether COVID-19-related data may be processed by an employer is evaluated differently, even in the context of the same data protection regime such as the GDPR.
Below, we discuss whether employers in different European Economic Area (EEA) countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related data about their employees.
Austria: The processing of health data in context of the COVID-19 pandemic can be based on Article 9 (2) (b) of the GDPR in conjunction with the relevant provisions on the duty of care (processing for the purpose of fulfilling obligations under labor and social law). Under Austrian labor law, every employer has a duty of care towards its employees, which also includes the exclusion of health hazards in the workplace. However, this only entitles the employer to ask the employee in general terms whether he or she has been examined, is healthy or has been vaccinated. Therefore, if the legislator provides for two other equivalent methods to prove a low epidemiological risk in addition to vaccination, the current view of the data protection authority is that specific questioning about vaccination status is not possible from a data protection perspective. An exception to this is only to be seen in the case of an explicit (voluntary) consent of the employee (Art. 9 (2) a) GDPR), but a voluntary consent is not to be assumed as a rule due to the dependency relationship of the employee.
As of November, employees will be obliged to prove whether they have been vaccinated, recovered from a COVID-19 infection or recently tested negative if they have physical contact with others in enclosed spaces, such as the office.
Austria was the first EU country to introduce mandatory Corona vaccination. From the beginning of February, Corona vaccination will be mandatory for all persons over 18 years of age, otherwise they will face fines of up to 3,600 euros from mid-March.
Belgium: In Belgium, there is no legal basis for the processing of vaccination information of employees by their employer. Article 9 (1) GDPR prohibits the processing of health data unless an explicit exception under Article 9 (2) GDPR applies. Such an exception may be a legal provision or the free and explicit consent of the data subject. Such a legal provision is missing and in the relationship between employee and employer, the employee’s consent is rarely free, as an employee may be under great pressure to give consent. The Belgian data protection authority explicitly denies the employer’s right to ask.
The Belgian government plans to make vaccination mandatory for health workers from April 2022.
Finland: The processing of an employee’s health data is only permitted if it is directly necessary for the employment relationship. The employer must carefully assess whether this necessity exists. It is not possible to deviate from this necessity by obtaining the employee’s consent. The employer may process an employee’s health data if this is necessary for the payment of sick pay or comparable health-related benefits or to establish a legitimate reason for the employee’s absence. The processing of health data is also permitted if an employee expressly requests that his or her ability to work be determined on the basis of health data. In addition, the employer is entitled to process an employee’s health data in situations expressly provided for by law. The employer may require occupational health care to provide statistical data on the immunization coverage of its employees.
France: In general employers may not require their employees to disclose whether they have been vaccinated, unless specific circumstances determined by law apply.
In France, mandatory vaccination has been in effect since mid-September for healthcare workers, i.e., employees of hospitals, retirement and nursing homes, care services, and employees of emergency services and fire departments.
Since July 21st, 2021, a “health passport” is mandatory for recreational and cultural facilities with more than 50 visitors, such as theaters, cinemas, concerts, festivals, sports venues. The health passport is a digital or paper-based record of whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered within 11 days to 6 months, or tested negative within 48 hours. Due to the Health Crisis Management Law No 2021-1040 of August 5, 2021 there are several workplaces where the health pass is mandatory for employees since August 30th, 2021. These include bars, restaurants, seminars, public transport for long journeys (train, bus, plane The health passport is also mandatory for the staff and visitors of hospitals, homes for the elderly, retirement homes, but not for patients who have a medical emergency.Visitors and staff of department stores and shopping malls need to present a health pass in case the prefect of the department decided this necessary. In these cases, the employer is obliged to check if his employees meet their legal obligations. However, the employer should not copy and store the vaccination certificates, but only store the information whether an employee has been vaccinated. Employers who do not fall into these categories are not allowed to process their employees’ vaccination data. In these cases, only occupational health services may process this type of information and the employer may not obtain this information under any circumstances. At most, he may obtain a medical opinion on whether an employee is fit for work.
Germany: Processing of COVID-19-related information is generally only allowed for employers in certain industries. Certain employers named in the law, such as in §§ 23a, 23 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), employers in certain health care facilities (e.g. hospitals, doctors’ offices, rescue services) and § 36 (3) IfSG, such as day care centers, outpatient care services, schools, homeless shelters or correctional facilities, are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees.
Other employers are generally not permitted to inquire about the vaccination status of employees. But since §28b IfSG came into force on November 24, 2021, employees may only be granted access to company premises if they can prove that they have either been vaccinated, recently recovered or tested negative (so-called “3G status”). In this context, employers may require employees to provide proof of one of the three statuses but may not specifically ask about vaccination status. When it comes to processing and storing information obtained during access control, for data protection reasons, this information must be limited to the fact that employees have access to the premises (taking into account their documented status) and how long this access authorization has existed.
Under current law, while “vaccinated” status does not expire, the information may only be stored for 6 months. “Recently recovered” status is only valid for three months. After that, they must provide other proof that they meet one of the 3G criteria. A negative test is valid for either 24 or 48 hours, depending on the type of test.
Since November 2021, employers are required to verify whether an employee who has been sanctioned with a quarantine for COVID-19 infection was or could have been vaccinated prior to the infection. Under the fourth sentence of Section 56 (1) of the IfSG, an employee is not entitled to continued payment for the period of quarantine if the employee could have avoided the quarantine, e.g., by taking advantage of a vaccination program. The employer must pay the compensation on behalf of the competent authority. As part of this obligation to make an advance payment, the employer is also obliged to check whether the factual requirements for granting the benefits are met. The employer is therefore obliged to obtain information on the vaccination status of its employee before paying the compensation and to decide on this basis whether compensation can be considered in the individual case. The data protection law basis for this processing activity is Section 26 (3) of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), which permits the processing of special categories of personal data – if this is necessary for the exercise of rights or the fulfillment of legal obligations under labor, social insurance and social protection law and there is no reason to assume that the interests of the data subjects worthy of protection in the exclusion of the processing outweigh this. The Data Protection Conference, an association of German data protection authorities, states that processing the vaccination status of employees on the basis of consent is only possible if the consent was given voluntarily and thus legally valid, Section 26 (3) sentence 2 and (2) BDSG. Due to the relationship of superiority and subordination existing between employer and employee, there are regularly doubts about the voluntariness and thus the legal validity of the employees’ consent.
If employers are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees, they should not copy the certificates, but only check to see if an employee has been vaccinated.
A mandatory vaccination for all german citizens is being discussed.
Greece: Corona vaccination became mandatory for nursing home staff in mid-August and for the healthcare sector on September 1. Since mid-September, all unvaccinated professionals have had to present a negative Corona rapid test twice a week – at their own expense – when they go to work.
Italy: Since October 15, Italy has become the first country in the EEA to require all workers to present a “green passport” at the workplace. This document records whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered, or tested. A general vaccination requirement has been in effect for health care workers since May, and employees in educational institutions have been required to present the green passport since September. In mid-October, mandatory vaccination was extended to employees of nursing homes.
Netherlands: Currently, there is no specific legislation that allows employers to process the vaccination data of their employees. Government guidelines for employers state that neither testing nor vaccination can be mandated for employees. Only occupational health services and company physicians are allowed to process vaccination data, for example, when employees are absent or reinstated. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has announced that he will allow the health sector to determine the vaccination status of its employees. He also wants to examine whether and how this can be done in other work situations. Currently, employers can only offer voluntary testing in the workplace, but are not allowed to document or enforce the results of such tests.
Spain: Employers are allowed to ask employees if they have been vaccinated, but only if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to fulfill its legal obligation to ensure health and safety in the workplace. However, employees have the right to refuse to answer this question. Before entering the workplace, employees may be asked to provide a negative test or proof of vaccination if the occupational health and safety provider deems it necessary for the particular workplace.
6. January 2022
On December 20th, 2021, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) launched a public consultation on its regulatory approach.
The public consultation is aimed at three separate documents which are the basis of the ICO’s regulatory process. The documents are the Regulatory Action Policy (RAP), the Statutory Guidance on the ICO’s Regulatory Action, and Statutory Guidance on the ICO’s PECR Powers.
The RAP in particular identifies the ICO’s risk-based approach to regulatory action and explains the factors that play a role in the ICO’s consideration before taking regulatory action. It also sets forth how the ICO cooperates with other regulators and enforces the legislation for which it is responsible.
In conjunction, the three documents illustrate how the ICO aims to enforce information rights for data subjects in the UK.
The ICO indicated that the purpose for updating these documents was to provide further explanation about its regulatory powers. It aims to give the public a chance to their views on the approach the Commissioner should take with regards to the regulatory approach of his office.
The public consultation period will conclude on March 24, 2022.
30. December 2021
On December 17th, 2021, the European Commission (Commission) announced in a statement it had adopted an adequacy decision for the transfer of personal data from the European Union (EU) to the Republic of Korea (South Korea) under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
An adequacy decision is one of the instruments available under the GDPR to transfer personal data from the EU to third countries that ensure a comparable level of protection for personal data as the EU. It is a Commission decision under which personal data can flow freely and securely from the EU to the third country in question without any further conditions or authorizations being required. In other words, the transfer of data to the third country in question can be handled in the same way as the transfer of data within the EU.
This adequacy decision allows for the free flow of personal data between the EU and South Korea without the need for any further authorization or transfer instrument, and it also applies to the transfer of personal data between public sector bodies. It complements the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EU and South Korea, which entered into force in July 2011. The trade agreement has led to a significant increase in bilateral trade in goods and services and, inevitably, in the exchange of personal data.
Unlike the adequacy decision regarding the United Kingdom, this adequacy decision is not time-limited.
The Commission’s statement reads:
The adequacy decision will complement the EU – Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement with respect to personal data flows. As such, it shows that, in the digital era, promoting high privacy and personal data protection standards and facilitating international trade can go hand in hand.
In South Korea, the processing of personal data is governed by the Personal Information Portection Act (PIPA), which provides similar principles, safeguards, individual rights and obligations as the ones under EU law.
An important step in the adequacy talks was the reform of PIPA, which took effect in August 2020 and strengthened the investigative and enforcement powers of the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC), the independent data protection authority of South Korea. As part of the adequacy talks, both sides also agreed on several additional safeguards that will improve the protection of personal data processed in South Korea, such as transparency and onward transfers.
These safeguards provide stronger protections, for example, South Korean data importers will be required to inform Europeans about the processing of their data, and onward transfers to third countries must ensure that the data continue to enjoy the same level of protection. These regulations are binding and can be enforced by the PIPC and South Korean courts.
The Commission has also published a Q&A on the adequacy decision.
30. November 2021
On November 25th, Apple announced in a press release that it has filed a lawsuit against NSO Group Technologies Ltd. (NSO Group) to hold them accountable for their spy software “Pegasus”.
NSO Group is a technology company that supplies surveillance software for governments and government agencies. Applications like Pegasus exploit vulnerabilities in software to infect the target’s devices with Trojans. Pegasus is a spyware that can be secretly installed on cell phones (and other devices) running most iOS and Android versions. Pegasus is not a single exploit, but a series of exploits that exploit many vulnerabilities in the system. Some of the exploits used by Pegasus are zero-click, which means that they can be executed without any interaction from the victim. It is reorted to be able to read text messages, track calls, collect passwords, track location, access the microphone and camera of the targeted device, extract contacts, photos, web browsing history, settings and collect information from apps.
NSO Group is accused of selling its software to authoritarian governments, which use it to monitor journalists and the opposition. Accusations that the company regularly denies. According to an investigation done by a global consortium of journalists of 17 media oganizations, Pegasus has been used to monitor female journalists, human rights activists, lawyers and high-ranking politicians. There are even reports suggesting it is even used by Mexican drug cartels to target and intimidate Mexican journalists. Among the more famous confirmed Pegasus victims are Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and murdered Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Kashoggi.
Apple wants to prevent “further abuse and harm” to Apple users. The lawsuit also demands unspecified compensation for spying on users.
In the press release Apple states:
NSO Group and its clients devote the immense resources and capabilities of nation-states to conduct highly targeted cyberattacks, allowing them to access the microphone, camera, and other sensitive data on Apple and Android devices. To deliver FORCEDENTRY to Apple devices, attackers created Apple IDs to send malicious data to a victim’s device — allowing NSO Group or its clients to deliver and install Pegasus spyware without a victim’s knowledge. Though misused to deliver FORCEDENTRY, Apple servers were not hacked or compromised in the attacks.
Ivan Krstić, head of Apple Security Engineering and Architecture is quoted:
In a free society, it is unacceptable to weaponize powerful state-sponsored spyware against those who seek to make the world a better place
Apple has announced the lawsuit contains new information about the so-called ForcedEntry exploit for a now-closed vulnerability that NSO Group used to “break into a victim’s Apple device and install the latest version of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware program,” according to Apple’s press release. The vulnerability was originally discovered by Citizen Lab, a research group at the University of Toronto. Apple says it will support organizations like Citizen Lab and Amnesty Tech in their work, and will donate $10 million and any compensation from the lawsuit to organizations involved in researching and protecting against cyber surveillance. The company will also support Citizen Lab with free technology and technical assistance.
Apple is the second major company to sue NSO Group after WhatsApp Inc. and its parent company Meta Platforms, Inc.(then Facebook, Inc.) filed a complaint against NSO Group in 2019. The allogation of that lawsuit is that NSO Group unlawfully exploited WhatsApp’s systems to monitor users.
In early November 2021, the US Department of Commerce placed NSO Group on its “Entity List”. The justification for this step states that Pegasus was used to monitor government officials, journalists, business people, activists, academics and embassy staff. On the “Entity List,” the U.S. government lists companies, individuals or governments whose activities are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Trade with these companies is subject to strict restrictions and in some cases is only possible with an exemption from the Department.
16. November 2021
On October 27th, 2021 Signal published a search warrant for user data issued by a court in Santa Clara, California. The court ordered Signal to provide a variety of information, including a user’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, and call records from the years 2019 and 2020. Signal was only able to provide two sets of data: the timestamp of when the account was created and the date of the last connection to the Signal server, as Signal does not store any other information about its users.
The warrant also included a confidentiality order that was extended four times. Signal stated:
Though the judge approved four consecutive non-disclosure orders, the court never acknowledged receipt of our motion to partially unseal, nor scheduled a hearing, and would not return counsel’s phone calls seeking to schedule a hearing.
A similar case was made public by Signal in 2016, when a court in Virginia requested the release of user data and ordered that the request not be made public. Signal fought the non-publication order in court and eventually won.
Signal is a messenger app that is highly regarded among privacy experts like Edward Snowden. That’s because Signal has used end-to-end encryption by default from the start, doesn’t ask its users for personal information or store personal data on its servers and is open source. The messenger is therefore considered particularly secure and trustworthy. Moreover, no security vulnerabilities have become known so far, which is definitely the case with numerous competing products.
Since 2018, Signal is beeing operated by the non-profit organization Signal Technology Foundation and the Signal Messenger LLC. At that time, WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton, among others, joined the company and invested $50 million. Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike is also still on board.
The EU commission is planning a legislative package to fight the spread of child abuse on the Internet. The law will also include automated searches of the content of private and encrypted communications, for example via messenger apps. This would undermine the core functions of Signal in Europe. Critics call this form of preventive mass surveillance a threat to privacy, IT security, freedom of expression and democracy.
15. November 2021
On November 10th, 2021, the UK Supreme Court issued a long-awaited judgment in the Lloyd v Google case and denied the class-action lawsuit against Google over alleged illegal tracking of millions of iPhone users back in 2011 and 2012 to proceed further. The 3 billion GBP lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of 4.4 million residents in England and Wales, had implications for other class-action lawsuits filed in the U.K.
The case was originally filed by Richard Lloyd on behalf of the group “Google You Owe Us.” The group accused Google of bypassing Apple iPhone security by collecting personal information of users on the phone’s Safari web browser between August 2011 and February 2012. A U.K. court dismissed the case in October 2018, but it was later overturned by the UK Court of Appeal.
In a final decision in the case dating from last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Google, deciding that the representative claim against Google under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) should not be allowed to proceed. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court considered the following points:
- the statutory scheme of the DPA does not permit recovery of compensation for the mere “loss of control” of personal data and
- the representative claim by Lloyd on behalf of the 4.4 million affected individuals should not be allowed to proceed, as Lloyd was unable to demonstrate that each of those individuals who he represented in the claim had suffered a violation of their rights under the DPA and material damage because of that violation.
“The claimants seeks damages,” Judge George Leggatt stated the decision, “for each individual member of the represented class without attempting to show that any wrongful use was made by Google of personal data relating to that individual or that the individual suffered any material damage or distress as a result of a breach.” Judge Leggatt also said, “Without proof of these matters, a claim for damages cannot succeed.”
The decision will be welcomed by controllers, as it limits the prospects of representative claims of the nature of that advanced by Lloyd and further provides reassurance that mere technical breaches of the UK GDPR that do not result in material damage to data subjects do not represent sufficient ground for compensation.
27. October 2021
As COVID-19 vaccination campaigns are well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information (vaccinated, recovered) and, if so, how that information may be used.
COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, if an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data.
The following discusses whether employers in various non-EEA countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related information about their employees.
Brazil: According to the Labor Code (CLT), employers in Brazil have the right to require their employees to be vaccinated. This is because the employer is responsible for the health and safety of its employees in the workplace and therefore has the right to take reasonable measures to ensure health and safety in the workplace. Since employers can require their employees to be vaccinated, they can also require proof of vaccination. Because LGPD considers this information to be sensitive personal data, special care must be taken in processing it.
Hong-Kong: An employer may require its employees to disclose their immunization status. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (OSHO), employers are required to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety and health of all their employees in the workplace. The vaccine may be considered as part of COVID-19 risk assessments as a possible additional measure to mitigate the risks associated with contracting the virus in the workplace. The requirement for vaccination must be lawful and reasonable. Employers may decide, following such a risk assessment, that a vaccinated workforce is necessary and appropriate to mitigate risk. If the employer does so, it must comply with the Personal Data Privacy Ordinance (PDPO). Among other things, the PDPO requires that the collection of data must be necessary for the purpose for which it is collected and must not be kept longer than is necessary for that purpose. Under the PDPO, before collecting data, the employer must inform the employee whether the collection is mandatory or voluntary for the employee and, if mandatory, what the consequences are for the employee if he or she does not provide the data.
UK: An employer may inquire about an employee’s vaccination status or conduct tests on employees if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to comply with its legal obligation to ensure health and safety at work. The employer must be able to demonstrate that the processing of this information is necessary for compliance with its health and safety obligations under employment law, Art. 9 (2) (b) UK GDPR. He must also conduct a data protection impact assessment to evaluate the necessity of the data collection and balance that necessity against the employee’s right to privacy. A policy for the collection of such data and its retention is also required. The information must be retained only as long as it is needed. There must also be no risk of unlawful discrimination, e.g. the reason for refusing vaccination could be protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.
USA: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a document in which it suggests that an employer may implement a vaccination policy as a condition of physically returning to the workplace. Before implementing a vaccination requirement, an employer should consider whether there are any relevant state laws or regulations that might change anything about the requirements for such a provision. If an employer asks an unvaccinated employee questions about why he or she has not been vaccinated or does not want to be vaccinated, such questions may elicit information about a disability and therefore would fall under the standard for disability-related questions. Because immunization records are personally identifiable information about an employee, the information must be recorded, handled, and stored as confidential medical information. If an employer self-administers the vaccine to its employees or contracts a third party to do so, the employer must demonstrate that the screening questions are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
As COVID-19 vaccination campaigns are well under way, employers are faced with the question of whether they are legally permitted to ask employees about their COVID-19 related information (vaccinated, recovered, test result) and, if so, how that information may be used.
COVID-19 related information, such as vaccination status, whether an employee has recovered from an infection or whether an employee is infected with COVID-19, is considered health data. This type of data is considered particularly sensitive data in most data protection regimes, which may only be processed under strict conditions. Art. 9 (1) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(EU), Art. 9 (1) UK-GDPR (UK), Art. 5 (II) General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD) (Brazil), para. 1798.140. (b) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) (California) all consider health-related information as sensitive personal data. However, the question of whether COVID-19-related data may be processed by an employer is evaluated differently, even in the context of the same data protection regime such as the GDPR.
The following discusses whether employers in various European Economic Area (EEA) countries are permitted to process COVID-19-related information about their employees.
Austria: The processing of health data in context of the COVID-19 pandemic can be based on Article 9 (2) (b) of the GDPR in conjunction with the relevant provisions on the duty of care (processing for the purpose of fulfilling obligations under labor and social law). Under Austrian labor law, every employer has a duty of care towards its employees, which also includes the exclusion of health hazards in the workplace. However, this only entitles the employer to ask the employee in general terms whether he or she has been examined, is healthy or has been vaccinated. Therefore, if the legislator provides for two other equivalent methods to prove a low epidemiological risk in addition to vaccination, the current view of the data protection authority is that specific questioning about vaccination status is not possible from a data protection perspective. An exception to this is only to be seen in the case of an explicit (voluntary) consent of the employee (Art. 9 (2) a) GDPR), but a voluntary consent is not to be assumed as a rule due to the dependency relationship of the employee.
As of November, employees will be obliged to prove whether they have been vaccinated, recovered from a COVID-19 infection or recently tested negative if they have physical contact with others in enclosed spaces, such as the office.
Belgium: In Belgium, there is no legal basis for the processing of vaccination information of employees by their employer. Article 9 (1) GDPR prohibits the processing of health data unless an explicit exception under Article 9 (2) GDPR applies. Such an exception may be a legal provision or the free and explicit consent of the data subject. Such a legal provision is missing and in the relationship between employee and employer, the employee’s consent is rarely free, as an employee may be under great pressure to give consent. The Belgian data protection authority also explicitly denies the employer’s right to ask.
Finland: The processing of an employee’s health data is only permitted if it is directly necessary for the employment relationship. The employer must carefully verify whether this necessity exists. It is not possible to deviate from this necessity by obtaining the employee’s consent. The employer may process an employee’s health data if this is necessary for the payment of sick pay or comparable health-related benefits or to establish a justified reason for the employee’s absence. The processing of health data is also permitted if an employee expressly requests that his or her ability to work be determined on the basis of health data. In addition, the employer is entitled to process an employee’s health data in situations expressly provided for elsewhere in the Act. The employer may request from occupational health care statistical data on the vaccination protection of its employees.
France: Since July 21st, 2021, a “health passport” is mandatory for recreational and cultural facilities frequented by more than 50 people, such as theaters, cinemas, concerts, festivals, sports venues. The health passport is a digital or paper-based record of whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered within 11 days to 6 months, or tested negative within 48 hours. There are several workplaces where vaccination has been mandatory for workers since August 30th, 2021. These include bars, restaurants, seminars, public transport for long journeys (train, bus, plane). The health passport is also mandatory for the staff and visitors of hospitals, homes for the elderly, retirement homes, but not for patients who have a medical emergency. Also, visitors and staff of department stores and shopping malls need to present a health pass in case the prefect of the department decided this necessary. In these cases, the employer is obliged to check if his employees meet their legal obligations. However, the employer should not copy and store the vaccination certificates, but only store the information whether an employee has been vaccinated. Employers who do not fall into these categories are not allowed to process their employees’ vaccination data. In these cases, only occupational health services may process this type of information, but the employer may not obtain this information under any circumstances. At most, he may obtain a medical opinion on whether an employee is fit for work.
Germany: Processing of COVID-19 related information is generally only permitted for employers in certain sectors. Certain employers named in the law, such as in §§ 23a, 23 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), employers in certain health care facilities (e.g. hospitals, doctors’ offices, rescue services, ) and § 36 (3) IfSG, such as day care centers, outpatient care services, schools, homeless shelters or correctional facilities, are allowed to process the vaccination status of their employees. Other employers are generally not permitted to inquire about the vaccination status of employees. If allowed to process their employee’s vaccination status, employers should not copy the certificates but only check whether an employee is vaccinated. Although there has been an ongoing discussion in the federal government for several weeks about introducing a legal basis that would allow all employers to administer vaccination information. From November 2021, employers must check whether an employee who has been sanctioned with a quarantine due to a COVID-19 infection was or could have been vaccinated prior to the infection. According to Section 56 (1) sentence 4 IfSG, there is no entitlement to continued payment of remuneration for the period of quarantine if the employee could have avoided the quarantine, e.g. by taking advantage of a vaccination program. The employer must pay the compensation on behalf of the competent authority. As part of this obligation to pay in advance, the employer is also obliged to check whether the factual requirements for the granting of benefits are met. The employer is therefore obliged to obtain information on the vaccination status of its employee before paying compensation and, on this basis, to decide whether compensation can be considered in the individual case. The data protection basis for this processing activity is Section 26 (3) of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), which permits the processing of special categories of personal data – if this is necessary for the exercise of rights or the fulfillment of legal obligations arising from labor law, social security law and social protection law, and if there is no reason to assume that the data subjects’ interest in the exclusion of the processing, which is worthy of protection, outweighs this. The Data Protection Conference, an association of German data protection authorities, states that processing the vaccination status of employees on the basis of consent is only possible if the consent was given voluntarily and therefore legally effective, Section 26 (3) sentence 2 and (2) BDSG. Due to the relationship of superiority and subordination existing between employer and employee, there are regularly doubts about the voluntariness and thus the legal validity of the employees’ consent.
Italy: Since October 15, Italy has become the first country in the EEA to require all workers to present a “green passport” at the workplace. This document records whether a person has been vaccinated, recovered, or tested. A general vaccination requirement has been in effect for health care workers since May, and employees in educational institutions have been required to present the green passport since September.
Netherlands: Currently, there is no specific legislation that allows employers to process employee immunization data. Only the occupational health service and company doctors are allowed to process immunization data, for example when employees are absent or reintegrated. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport has announced that he will allow the health sector to determine the vaccination status of its employees. He also wants to examine whether and how this can be done in other work situations. Currently, employers can only offer voluntary testing in the workplace, but are not allowed to document the results of such tests or force
Spain: Employers are allowed to ask employees if they have been vaccinated, but only if it is proportionate and necessary for the employer to fulfill its legal obligation to ensure health and safety in the workplace. However, employees have the right to refuse to answer this question. Before entering the workplace, employees may be asked to provide a negative test or proof of vaccination if the occupational health and safety provider deems it necessary for the particular workplace.
23. September 2021
On Monday, 20 September 2021 the UK Ministry of Defence launched an investigation into a recent data breach. The breach has affected more than 250 Afghan interpreters who have cooperated with Western forces in Afghanistan and who have applied for relocation to the UK. The Ministry sent an e-mail to these Afghan individuals who are still in Afghanistan and are reportedly eligible for relocation. The e-mail included all e-mail addresses, names, and some associated profile pictures in copy (“cc”) instead of blind copy (“bcc”), thus exposing the personal information to all recipients. It was reported that some Afghans have sent reply e-mails to all recipients in the mailing list, even sharing details about their current personal situation.
The following Tuesday, Britain’s Defence Minister Ben Wallace apologised for the data breach publicly in Parliament. He explained that he is aware of the compromise of safety of the Afghan interpreters and has suspended an official as a result of the breach. Upon discovery, the Ministry sent out another e-mail advising the affected individuals to delete the previous e-mail and to change their e-mail addresses. Additionally, the Ministry of Defence will offer extra support to those affected by the incident. The Minister also stated that correspondence processes have already been changed.
In the meantime, a second data breach by the Ministry of Defence was uncovered on Wednesday. This time, an e-mail was sent to 55 people requesting them to update their details after the UK officials were unable to contact them. At least one of the recipients is a member of the Afghan National Army. Again, the e-mail was sent with all recipients in “cc” and not in “bcc”.
Military experts and politicians have criticised the Ministry for the data breaches which unnecessarily endanger the safety of Afghans, many of whom are hiding from the Taliban. The investigation into data handling by the “Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy” team within the Ministry of Defence is still ongoing, a spokesperson of the Ministry has said.
30. August 2021
On August 26, 2021, the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published a document in which it indicated the intent to begin making adequacy decisions for UK data transfers to third countries.
As the UK has left the EU, it has the power under Chapter V of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) to independently assess the standard of data protection in other jurisdictions, and recognize certain jurisdictions as adequate for the purpose of foreign UK data transfers. This was announced by the DCMS in a Mission Statement including reference to international data transfers, “International data transfers: building trust, delivering growth and firing up innovation“.
“In doing so we want to shape global thinking and promote the benefits of secure international exchange of data. This will be integral to global recovery and future growth and prosperity,” writes the UK Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden and Minister for Media and Data John Whittingdale.
The UK has developed and implemented policies and processes for reaching adequacy agreements with its partners. So far it has identified 10 countries as “priority destinations” for these deals. The countries include Australia, Brazil, Columbia, The Dubai International Financial Centre, India, Indonesia, Kenya, The Republic of Korea, Singapore and the USA.
The adequacy of a third country will be determined on the basis of whether the level of protection under the UK GDPR is undermined when UK data is transferred to the respective third country, which requires an assessment of the importing jurisdiction’s data protection laws as well as their implementation, enforcement and supervision. Particularly important for the consideration will be the third country’s respect for rule of law and the fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The Mission Statement specifies four phases in assessing the adequacy of a jurisdiction. In the first phase, the UK Adequacy Assessment team will evaluate if an adequacy assessment will take place. The second phase involves an analysis of the third country’s level of data protection laws, the result of which will influence the third phase, in which the UK Adequacy Assessment team will make a recommendation to the UK Secretary of State. In the fourth and last phase, the relevant regulations will be presented to Parliament to give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s determination.
Adequacy decisions are planned to be reviewed at least once every four years, and may be subject to judicial review.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21 22 23 Next 
