Tag: France
10. January 2023
After receiving several complaints , in November 2022, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) decided to impose a fine of 300.000 Euros upon the French phone operator FREE for several violations of the rules contained in the GDPR.
In particular, findings included violations of:
- Article 12 and 21 GDPR, regarding transparent communication on how the data subjects can exercise their rights, in particular the right of erasure.
- Article 15 GDPR, regarding the right of access by the data subject.
- Article 32 GDPR, regarding the security of personal data.
- Article 33 GDPR, as FREE did not comply with the obligation to document a personal data breach.
As a consequence of these findings, CNIL decided to impose a fine upon FREE, with an order to comply with the GDPR’s rules regarding the management of access and erasure requests and to justify this compliance within three months from the decision, with an additional fine of 500 Euros for each day overdue.
28. October 2022
The French data protection authority CNIL imposed a fine of 20 million Euros on Clearview AI, being the latest in a line of authorities deeming the processing activities of the biometrics company unlawful under data protection law.
Clearview AI is a US company that extracts photographs and videos that are directly accessible online, including social media, in order to feed its biometric image database, which it prides itself to be the biggest in the world. Access to the search engine based on this database is offered to law enforcement authorities.
The case
The decision followed several complaints from data subjects in 2020, which led to the CNIL’s investigations and a formal notice to Clearview AI in November 2021 to “cease the collection and use of data of persons on French territory in the absence of a legal basis” and “facilitate the exercise of individuals’ rights and to comply with requests for erasure.” However, the company did not react to this notice within the two-month deadline imposed by the CNIL. Therefore, the authority imposed not only the fine but also an order to Clearview AI “to stop collecting and processing data of individuals residing in France without a legal basis and to delete the data of these persons that it had already collected, within a period of two months.” In addition, it set a “penalty of 100,000 euros per day of delay beyond these two months.”
CNIL based its decision on three breaches. First, Clearview AI had processed the data without a legal basis. Given the “intrusive and massive nature of the process which makes it possible to retrieve the images present on Internet of the millions of internet users in France”, Clearview AI had no legitimate interest in the data processing. Second, the CNIL sanctioned Clearview AI’s inadequate handling of data subjects’ requests. Lastly, it penalized the company’s failure to cooperate with the CNIL.
The impact of the decision
For over two years, Clearview AI has been under the scrutiny of data protection authorities (“DPA”s) all over the world. So far, it has been fined more than 68 million Euros in total. Apart from CNIL’s fine, there have been fines of 20 million Euros by Greece’s Hellenic DPA in July 2022, over 7.5 million pounds by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office in May 2022 and 20 million Euros by the Italian Garante in March 2022.
CNIL’s decision was likely not the last one, considering that the all-encompassing nature of Clearview AI’s collection of personal data that – given the company’s business model – inevitably concerns EU data subjects. Whether the company will comply within the two-month period is yet to be seen.
22. April 2022
After being hit with a €150 million fine by France’s data protection agency CNIL earlier in the year for making the process of rejecting cookies unnecessarily confusing and convoluted for users, Google has added a new “Reject All” button to the cookie consent banners that have become ubiquitous on websites in Europe. Users visiting Search and YouTube in Europe while signed out or in incognito mode will soon see an updated cookie dialogue with reject all and accept all buttons.
Previously, users only had two options: “I accept” and “personalize.” While this allowed users to accept all cookies with a single click, they had to navigate through various menus and options if they wanted to reject all cookies. “This update, which began rolling out earlier this month on YouTube, will provide you with equal “Reject All” and “Accept All” buttons on the first screen in your preferred language,” wrote Google product manager Sammit Adhya in a blog post.
According to Google they have kicked off the rollout of the new cookie banner in France and will be extending the change to all Google users in Europe, the U.K., and Switzerland soon.
Google’s plan to include a “Reject All” button on cookie banners after its existing policy violated EU law was also welcomed by Hamburg’s Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information Thomas Fuchs during a presentation of his 2021 activity report.
But the introduction of the “Reject All” button is likely to be only an interim solution because the US giant already presented far-reaching plans at the end of January to altogether remove Google cookies from third-party providers by 2023.
Instead of cookies, the internet giant wants to rely on in-house tracking technology for the Google Privacy Sandbox project.
6. April 2022
In the press release of the judgment of 5.4.2022, the ECJ has once again ruled that the collection of private communications data is unlawful without any reason or limit. This reinforces the rulings of 2014, 2016 and 2020, according to which changes are necessary at EU and national level.
In this judgment, the ECJ states that the decision to allow data retention as evidence in the case of a long-standing murder case is for the national court in Ireland.
Questions regarding this issue were submitted in 2020 by Germany, France and Ireland. The EU Advocate General confirmed, in a legally non-binding manner, the incompatibility of national laws with EU fundamental rights.
However, a first exception to data retention resulted from the 2020 judgment, according to which, in the event of a serious threat to national security, storage for a limited period and subject to judicial review was recognized as permissible.
Subsequently, a judgment in 2021 stated that national law must provide clear and precise rules with minimum conditions for the purpose of preventing abuse.
According to the ECJ, an without cause storage with restriction should be allowed in the following cases:
- When limited to specific individuals or locations;
- No concrete evidence of crime necessary, local crime rate is sufficient;
- Frequently visited locations such as airports and train stations;
- When national laws require the identity of prepaid cardholders to be stored;
- Quick freeze, an immediate backup and temporary data storage if there is suspicion of crime.
All of these are to be used only to combat serious crime or prevent threats to national security.
In Germany, Justice Minister Marco Buschmann is in favor of a quick freeze solution as an alternative that preserves fundamental rights. However, the EU states are to work on a legally compliant option for data retention despite the ECJ’s criticism of this principle.
25. February 2022
Following complaints received, but also on its own initiative, the French data protection supervisory authority Commission Nationale Informatique et Liberté (hereinafter ‘CNIL’) carries out checks, also based on reports of data protection violations. CNIL has published three topics for 2022 on which it will focus in particular. These topics are: commercial prospecting, surveillance tools in the context of teleworking, and cloud services.
With regard to commercial prospecting, CNIL draws particular attention to unsolicited advertising calls, which are a recurring complaint to CNIL in France.
In February 2022, CNIL published a guideline for “commercial management”, which is particularly relevant for commercial canvassing.
Based on this guideline, CNIL will control GDPR compliance. The focus here will be on professionals who resell data.
Regarding the monitoring tools for teleworking, identified as CNIL’s second priority, CNIL aims to assist in balancing the interests of protecting the privacy of workers who have the possibility of home office due to COVID-19 and the legitimate monitoring of activities by informing the rules to be followed for this purpose. CNIL believes that employers need to be more strictly controlled in this regard.
Last but not least, CNIL draws particular attention to the potential data protection breaches regarding the use of cloud computing technologies. Since massive data transfers outside the European Union can be considered here in particular, activities in this area must be monitored more closely. For this purpose, CNIL reserves the right to focus in particular on the frameworks governing the contractual relationships between data controllers and cloud technology providers.
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.
10. December 2021
The online clothing sales website vinted.com, operated by the Lithuanian company Vinted UAB, has recently had to face a large number of complaints regarding data protection aspects. The appeals were addressed to several national supervisory authorities, which, as a result, joined forces to investigate the website’s overall compliance with the GDPR. To this end, a task force was established, supported by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which held its first meeting on November 8th, 2021.
Vinted’s headquarters are located in Lithuania, which makes the State Data Protection Inspectorate (Lithuanian data protection authority) the leading supervisory authority. However, the platform is available in several other countries in Europe, whose supervisory authorities also received the aforementioned complaints. For this reason, the establishment of the task force was jointly decided by the national supervisory authorities from France, Lithuania and Poland. The aim of this task force is to ensure a coordinated approach to resolving the complaints received. It shall also enable a consistent and efficient examination of the compliance of Vinted’s data processing practices with the provisions of the GDPR.
The investigations focus in particular on the following issues:
- website operator’s requirement to upload a scan of the user’s identity card in order to unblock funds received from sales on the corresponding account and the relevant legal basis,
- procedure and criteria for blocking the user’s account and
- applicable data retention periods.
This is not the first time Vinted has been accused of controversial practices. Back on May 18th, 2021, the French consumers group UFC Que Choisir filed a class-action lawsuit with 16 million users against the company for “misleading business practices.” These are said to consist of charging an allegedly optional commission on every transaction, the amount of which only appears at the time of payment.
7. April 2021
Ikea’s French subsidiary and several of its former executives stood trial on Monday, March 22nd, 2021, after being sued by former employees on charges of violating privacy rights by surveilling the plaintiffs, job applicants and customers.
Trade unions reported the furniture and household goods company to French authorities in 2012, accusing it of fraudulently collecting personal data and disclosing it without authorization. The subsequent criminal investigation uncovered an extensive espionage system. According to French prosecutors, the company hired a surveillance company, private investigators and even a former military operative to illegally obtain confidential information about its existing and prospective employees as well as customers. The files received contained, inter alia, criminal records and bank statements. The system has been used for years, possibly even over a decade, to identify individuals who were particularly suspicious or working against the company.
After the case caused outrage in 2012, Ikea’s main parent company fired several executives at the French branch, including the former general manager. But the extensive activity in France has again raised questions about data breaches by the company.
At Monday’s trial an employee accused the company of abuse since it had wrongly suspected him of being a bank robber because its investigative system had found prior convictions of a bank robber with the same name. Others claimed the retailer had browsed through employees’ criminal records and used unauthorized data to reveal those driving expensive cars despite low incomes or unemployment benefits. Even an assistant director who had taken a year of medical leave to recover from hepatitis C was monitored to investigate whether she had faked the severity of her illness. Illicit background checks on hundreds of job applicants were also conducted. Moreover, the system was used to track down customers seeking refunds for mismanaged orders.
One of the defendants, the former head of Ikea France’s risk management department, has testified at the hearing that EUR 530.000 to 630.000 a year had been earmarked for such investigations. The former CEOs and Chief Financial Officer as well as store managers are also on trial. In addition, four police officers are accused of handing over confidential information from police files.
Ikea France said in a statement that it takes the protection of its employees’ and customers’ data very seriously. The company added that it adopted compliance and training procedures to prevent illegal activity and changed internal policies after the criminal investigation had been initiated. But at Monday’s hearing, Ikea France’s lawyers denied a system-wide surveillance. The case was also called “a fairy tale” invented by trade union activists.
The deputy prosecutor claimed, Ikea France had illegally monitored at least 400 people and used the information to its advantage. She is asking for a fine of EUR 2.000.000 against the company, prison sentences of at least one year for two former CEOs and a private investigator, as well as fines for some store managers and police officers. A total of 15 people have been charged. The company also faces potential claims for damages from civil lawsuits filed by unions and several employees.
The trial ended on April 2nd. A verdict by a panel of judges is scheduled for June 15th.
9. March 2021
On March 3rd, POLITICO reported that the French government seeks to bypass the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling on limiting member states’ surveillance activities of phone and internet data, stating governments can only retain mass amounts of data when facing a “serious threat to national security”.
According to POLITICO, the French government has requested the country’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, to not follow the CJEU’s ruling in the matter.
Last year in October, the CJEU ruled that several national data retention rules were not compliant with EU law. This ruling included retention times set forth by the French government in matters of national security.
The French case in question opposes the government against digital rights NGOs La Quadrature du Net and Privacy International. After the CJEU’s ruling, it is now in the hands of the Council of State in France, which will have to decide on the matter.
A hearing date has not yet been decided, however POLITICO sources state that the French government is trying to bypass the CJEU’s ruling by presenting the argument of the ruling going against the country’s “constitutional identity”. This argument, first used back in 2006, is seldomly used, however can be referred to in order to avoid applying EU law at national level.
In addition, the French government accuses the CJEU to have ruled out of its competence, as matters of national security remain solely part of national competence.
The French government did not want to comment on the ongoing process, however has had a history of refusing to adopt EU court rulings into national law.
9. April 2019
The French data protection authority CNIL has published a model regulation which regulates under which conditions devices for access control through biometric authentication may be introduced at the workplace.
Pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 14 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), biometric data are personal data relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, obtained by means of specific technical processes, which enable or confirm the unambiguous identification of that natural person. According to Article 9 paragraph 4 GDPR, the member states of the European Union may introduce or maintain additional conditions, including restrictions, as far as the processing of biometric data is concerned.
The basic requirement under the model regulation is that the controller proves that biometric data processing is necessary. To this end, the controller must explain why the use of other means of identification or organisational and technical safeguards is not appropriate to achieve the required level of security.
Moreover, the choice of biometric types must be specifically explained and documented by the employer. This also includes the justification for the choice of one biometric feature over another. Processing must be carried out for the purpose of controlling access to premises classified by the company as restricted or of controlling access to computer devices and applications.
Furthermore, the model regulation of the CNIL describes which types of personal data may be collected, which storage periods and conditions apply and which specific technical and organisational measures must be taken to guarantee the security of personal data. In addition, CNIL states that before implementing data processing, the controller must always carry out an impact assessment and a risk assessment of the rights and freedoms of the individual. This risk assessment must be repeated every three years for updating purposes.
The data protection authority also points out that the model regulation does not exempt from compliance with the regulations of the GDPR, since it is not intended to replace its regulations, but to supplement or specify them.
