Category: Article 29 WP

EDPB ratifies new Guideline on Health Data Processing during COVID-19

27. April 2020

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a new Guideline on the processing of health data for scienon the most urgent matters and issues in relation to the processing of health data. Those matters include the tific purposes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic on April 21, 2020. It aims at providing clarity on the most urgent matters and issues in relation to the processing of health data. Those matters include the legal basis for processing, the implementation of adequate safeguards as well as data subjects’ rights.

The Guideline states that the GDPR contains several provisions for the processing of health data in relation to scientific research. The first one would be the consent in Art. 6 (II) a GDPR in combination with Art. 9 (II) a GDPR. The EDPB emphasizes the necessity of the consent having to meet all the necessary conditions in order to be valid, notably consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and it must be made by way of a statement.

Further, the EDPB clarifies that Art. 6 (I) e or f GDPR in combination with the enacted derogations under Art. 9 (II) (i) or (j) GDPR can provide a legal basis for the processing of personal (health) data for scientific research. National legislators can implement their own derogations, setting ground for national legal bases in regulation with the GDPR.

The EDPB also addresses the case of further processing of health data for scientific purposes, which means the case when health data has not been collected for the primary purpose of scientific research. In these cases, the Guideline states that the scientific research is not incompatible with the original purpose of the processing, as long as the principles of Art. 5 GDPR are being upheld.

In regards to international transfers, the Guidelines make specific emphasis on the transfer to countries with no adequacy decision by the European Commission. In such cases, it is possible for the exporter of the data to rely on the derogations of Art. 49 (I) a, explicit consent, and d, transfer necessary for important public interest, GDPR. However, these derogations do not entitle continuous or repeated transfers, and are only supposed to be used as temporary measures. The EDPB states that this is a sanitary crisis like none before, and therefore the transfer to other countries in cases of scientific research form an international emergency in which the public interest may take first priority. But the Guideline makes clear that in case of repeated transfer, safeguards according to Art. 46 GDPR have to be taken.

The Guideline further emphasizes that situations like the current pandemic outbreak do not restrict data subjects to exercise their rights. However, Art. 82 (II) GDPR gives national lawmakers the possibility to restrict data subject rights, though these restrictions should apply only as is strictly necessary.

Over all, the EDPB states that it has to be noted that any processing or transfer will need to take into consideration on a case-by-case basis the respective roles (controller, processor, joint controller) and related obligations of the actors involved in order to identify the appropriate measures in each case.

EDPB publishes GDPR Implementation Review

16. March 2020

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released a review dated from February 18th, in a contribution to the evaluation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has reached its 20th month of being in effect.

Overall, the EDPB stated that it has a positive view of the implementation of the legislation in the different European Countries over the past 20 months. Furthermore, it deems a revision of the legislative text as likely, but not yet necessary in the near future.

The EDPB praised the Data Protection Authorities and their work up til now, saying it hopes that the cooperation between them will create a common data protection culture and consistent monitoring practices. But the report also mentioned that Supervisory Authorities in the countries face restrictions due to different national procedures and practices, which can hinder the cooperation. Furthermore, the EDPB sees a need to increase the funding for Supervisory Authorities to improve and support their duties.

On another note, the EDPB has acknowledged the challenges of implementation for Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). It says it is aware of these challenges, and works together with Supervisory Authorities to facilitate the supporting tools they have put out in order to support SMEs.

Lastly, it raised concerns about the timeframe of the new ePrivacy Regulation, and urged lawmakers to bundle their focus and efforts to carry on with its development.

Austrian DPA dismisses complaint concerning validity of Cookie Consent Solution

14. January 2019

The Austrian Data Privacy Authority (“DPA”) decided on a complaint, lodged by an individual, concerning the compliance of the cookie consent solution of an Austrian newspaper with the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The complainant argued that the consent was not given voluntarily, since the website was no longer accessible after the revocation of consent to marketing cookies. Further use of the website required payment. Therefore, according to the complainant, provision of the service depends on consent to the processing of personal data.

The Austrian newspaper grants users free access to the content of the website, provided that they agree to the use of cookies for advertising purposes. If this consent is revoked, the website will no longer be usable and the window for giving consent will reappear. Alternatively, in the same window, users can choose to subscribe to a paid subscription. For currently 6 euros per month users get access to the entire content of the site, without data tracking.

The DPA explained that consent is only given involuntarily if a disadvantage is to be expected if consent is not given. Referring to Article 29 Working Party’s Guidelines on Consent, the DPA stated that such a disadvantage arises when there is a risk of deception, intimidation, coercion or significant adverse consequences. Yet there is no such disadvantage here. In fact, after giving consent, the user of the website even gains an advantage because he gets full access to the newspaper’s services. Furthermore, if the user does not wish to give his consent, he can still use another online newspaper.

With its decision, the Austrian DPA set a welcome signal for other online newspapers that finance themselves through advertising revenues.

EDPB Publishes Opinions on National DPIA Lists

17. October 2018

Regarding the data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) recently published 22 Opinions on the draft lists of Supervisory Authority (“SAs”) in EU Member States. This is supposed to clarify which processing operations are subject to the requirement of conducting a DPIA under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The European Data Protection Board is an independent European body, which contributes to the consistent application of data protection rules throughout the European Union, and promotes cooperation between the EU’s data protection authorities. The Supervisory Authorities will now be given two weeks to decide whether they want to amend their draft list or maintain them and explain their decision.

Article 35(4) of the GDPR states that the SAs of the EU Member States must establish, publish and communicate to the EDPB a list of processing operations that trigger the DPIA requirement under the GDPR. Several EU Members States provided their list: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The national lists can vary because the SAs must take into account not only their national legislation but also the national or regional context.

To some extent, the EDPB requests that the SAs include processing activities in their list or specify additional criteria that, when combined, would satisfy the DPIA requirement. Furthermore, the EDPB requests that the SAs remove some processing activities or criteria not considered to present a high risk to individuals. The objective of the EDPB opinions is to ensure consistent application of the GDPR’s DPIA requirement and to limit inconsistencies among the EU States with respect to this requirement.

How to rule a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)?

9. May 2018

Pursuant to Art. 35 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) the controller of personal data shall carry out an assessment of the impact of the data processing that takes place in the controller’s responsibility. That means mostly, to anticipate the possible data breaches and to fulfil the requirements of the GDPR before the personal data is processed.

Even if the date of enforcement of the GDPR (25th May 2018) comes closer and closer, just a few of the EU member states are well-prepared. Only Austria, Belgium, Germany, Slovakia and Sweden have enact laws for the implementation of the new data protection rules. Additional to this legislation the national data protection authorities have to publish some advises on how to rule a DPIA. Pursuant to Art. 35 (4) sent. 2 GDPR these handbooks on DPIA’s should be gathered by the European Data Protection Board for an equal European-wide data protection level. The Board as well seems not to work yet, as the Article 29 Working Part (WP29) is still the official authority.

But at least, Belgium and Germany have published their DPIA recommendations and listed processes for which a DPIA is required, pursuant to Art. 35 (4) GDPR, and in which cases a DPIA is not required, see Art. 35 (5) GDPR.

For example, in the following cases the Belgian authority requires a DPIA:

  • Processing, that involves biometric data uniquely identifying in a space—public or private—which is publicly open,
  • Personal data from a third party that determines whether an applicant is hired or fired,
  • Personal data collected without given consent by the data subject (e.g. electronic devices like smart phones, auditory, and/or video devices),
  • Processing done by medical implant. This data may be an infringement of rights and freedoms.
  • Personal data that affects the vulnerable members of society (e.g., children, mentally challenged, physically challenged individuals),
  • Highly personal data such as financial statement; employability; social service involvement; private activities; domestic situation.
Category: Article 29 WP · Belgium · Data breach · EU · GDPR

WP29 Guidelines on the notion of consent according to the GDPR – Part 2

3. April 2018

Continued from the article about the Working Party 29 (WP29) guidelines on consent, additional elements of the term should be considered as consent plays a key role for the processing of personal data.

The GDPR requires consent to further be specific, i.e. the data subject must be informed about the purpose of the processing and be safeguarded against function creep. The data controller has to, again, be granular when it comes to multiple consent requests and clearly separate information regarding consent from other matters.

In case the data controller wishes to process the data for a new purpose, he will have to seek new consent from the data subject and cannot use the original consent as a legitimisation for processing of further or new purposes.

Consent will also be invalid if the data controller doesn’t comply with the requirements for informed consent. The WP29 lists six key points for consent to be informed focussing on the aspect that the data subject genuinely needs to understand the processing operations at hand. Information has to be provided in a clear and plain language and should not be hidden in general terms and conditions.

Furthermore, consent has to be an unambiguous indication of wishes, i.e. it must always be given through an active motion or declaration. For example, the use of pre-ticked opt-in boxes is invalid.

However, explicit consent is required in situations where serious data protection risks emerge such as the processing of Special categories of data pursuant to Art. 9 GDPR.

In general, the burden of proof will be on the data controller according to Art. 7 GDPR, without prescribing any specific methods. The WP29 recommends that consent should be refreshed at appropriate intervals.

Concerning the withdrawal of consent, it has to be as easy as giving consent and should be possible without detriment.

The WP29 also recommends that data controllers assess whether processing of data is appropriate irrespective of data subjects’ requests.

The European Data Protection Board – A new authority under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

27. February 2018

Through the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) there will be established a new EU Data Protection Authority, the so-called European Data Protection Board (the “Board”). The Board replaces the Article 29 Working Party starting May 25th 2018, when the GDPR enters into force. The board has its own legal personality.

Pursuant to Art. 68 (3) GDPR the Board is composed of the head of one supervisory authority of each Member State and of the European Data Protection Supervisor. It works independent and on its own initiative by issuing its opinion pursuant to Art. 64 GDPR or adopting a binding decision pursuant to Art. 65 GDPR, especially in the written cases of Art. 65 (1) GDPR. The Board hence has the authority to adopt one of the most powerful legal acts of the union from Art. 288 of the Treaty of the European Union (TFEU).

While harmonizing the data protection in the EU, the Boards main task is to maintain the consistent application of the GDPR by the national supervisory authority through the Consistency mechanism pursuant to Art. 63 GDPR. Within this Consistency mechanism, the Board comments the so-called Binding Corporate Rules (BCR), which are necessarily given by national data protection authorities for international data transfer of a company group.

The Board also has the final say if the national data protection authorities cannot reach an agreement concerning the implementation of the GDPR.

WP29 Guidelines on the notion of consent according to the GDPR – Part 1

26. January 2018

According to the GDPR, consent is one of the six lawful bases mentioned in Art. 6. In order for consent to be valid and compliant with the GDPR it needs to reflect the data subjects real choice and control.

The Working Party 29 (WP 29) clarifies and specifies the “requirements for obtaining and demonstrating” such a valid consent in its Guidelines released in December 2017.

The guidelines start off with an analysis of Article 4 (11) of the GDPR and then discusses the elements of valid consent. Referring to the Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of consent, “obtaining consent also does not negate or in any way diminish the controller’s obligations to observe the principles of processing enshrined in the GDPR, especially Article 5 of the GDPR with regard to fairness, necessity and proportionality, as well as data quality.”

The WP29 illustrates the elements of valid consent, such as the consent being freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. For example, a consent is not considered as freely given if a mobile app for photo editing requires the users to have their GPS location activated simply in order to collect behavioural data aside from the photo editing. The WP29 emphasizes that consent to processing of unnecessary personal data “cannot be seen as a mandatory consideration in exchange for performance.”

Another important aspect taken into consideration is the imbalance of powers, e.g. in the matter of public authorities or in the context of employment. “Consent can only be valid if the data subject is able to exercise a real choice, and there is no risk of deception, intimidation, coercion or significant negative consequences (e.g. substantial extra costs) if he/she does not consent. Consent will not be free in cases where there is any element of compulsion, pressure or inability to exercise free will. “

Art. 7(4) GDPR emphasizes that the performance of a contract is not supposed to be conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of the contract. The WP 29 states that “compulsion to agree with the use of personal data additional to what is strictly necessary limits data subject’s choices and stands in the way of free consent.” Depending on the scope of the contract or service, the term “necessary for the performance of a contract… …needs to be interpreted strictly”. The WP29 lays down examples of cases where the bundling of situations is acceptable.

If a service involves multiple processing operations or multiple purposes, the data subject should have the freedom to choose which purpose they accept. This concept of granularity requires the purposes to be separated and consent to be obtained for each purpose.

Withdrawal of consent has to be possible without any detriment, e.g. in terms of additional costs or downgrade of services. Any other negative consequence such as deception, intimidation or coercion is also considered to be invalidating. The WP29 therefore suggests controllers to ensure proof that consent has been given accordingly.

(will be soon continued in Part 2)

French Data Protection Commission threatens WhatsApp with sanctions

21. December 2017

The French National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) has found violations of the French Data Protection Act in the course of an investigation conducted in order to verify compliance of WhatsApps data Transfer to Facebook with legal requirements.

In 2016, WhatsApp had announced to transfer data to Facebook for the purpose of targeted advertising, security and business intelligence (technology-driven process for analyzing data and presenting actionable information to help executives, managers and other corporate end users make informed business decisions).

Immediately after the announcement, the Working Party 29 (an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC; hereinafter referred to as „WP29“) asked the company to stop the data transfer for targeted advertising as French law doesn’t provide an adequate legal basis.

„While the security purpose seems to be essential to the efficient functioning of the application, it is not the case for the “business intelligence” purpose which aims at improving performances and optimizing the use of the application through the analysis of its users’ behavior.“

In the wake of the request, WhatsApp had assured the CNIL that it does not process the data of French users for such purposes.

However, the CNIL currently not only came to the result that the users’ consent was not validly collected as it lacked two essential aspects of data protection law: specific function and free choice. But it also denies a legitimate interest when it comes to preserving fundamental rights of users based on the fact that the application cannot be used if the data subjects refuse to allow the processing.

WhatsApp has been asked to provide a sample of the French users’ data transferred to Facebook, but refused to do so because being located in die United States, „it considers that it is only subject to the legislation of this country.“

The inspecting CNIL thus has issued a formal notice to WhatsApp and again requested to comply with the requirements within one month and states:

„Should WhatsApp fail to comply with the formal notice within the specified timescale, the Chair may appoint an internal investigator, who may draw up a report proposing that the CNIL’s restricted committee responsible for examining breaches of the Data Protection Act issue a sanction against the company.“

 

WP29 releases opinion on joint review of Privacy Shield

11. December 2017

The Working Party 29 (WP29),  an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, has evaluated the Privacy Shield agreement  (framework for transatlantic exchanges of personal data for commercial purposes between the European Union and the United States, see also our report on One year of Privacy Shield).

In its joint review, the WP29 focusses on the assessment of commercial aspects and governmental access to personal data for national security purposes.

Though acknowledging progress, the WP29 still finds unresolved issues on both sides.

It criticizes the lack of guidance and clear information on the principles of the Privacy Shield, especially with regards to onward transfers, the rights of the data subject and remedies.

The US authorities are further requested to clearly distinguish the status of data processors from that of data controllers.

Another important issue to be tackled is the handling of Human Resource (HR)  data and the rules governing automated-decision making and profiling.

Also, the process of self-certification for companies requires improvement.

In terms of access by public authorities, the WP 29 concludes that the US government has made effort to become more transparent.

However, some of the main concerns still are to be resolved by May 25th, 2018.

The WP 29 calls for further evidence or legally binding commitments to confirm non-discrimination and the fact that authorities don’t get access on a generalized basis to data transferred to the USA from the EU.

Aside from these matters, an Ombudsperson still needs to be appointed and her/his exact powers need to be specified. According to the WP 29, the existing powers to remedy non-compliance are not sufficient.

In case no remedy is brought to these concerns in the given time frames, the members of WP29 will take appropriate action, including bringing the Privacy Shield Adequacy decision to national courts for them to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling.

Pages: 1 2 Next
1 2