Short Reads

Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

18.02.2019 NL law

As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

The national data protection authorities, united in the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), published an 'information note' on 13 February regarding personal data transfers in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The EDPB reaffirms the importance of making adequate arrangements for data streams to and from the UK in the event that no deal is reached. In particular, it sets out the options open to safeguarding the transfer of data to the UK under the GDPR once it leaves the European Union.

Data transfers from the UK

The UK has indicated that it will incorporate the GDPR into its legal system after Brexit As a consequence, data transfers from the UK to the rest of the EU should not be affected by Brexit, and will be subjected to the same safeguards as they are now.

Data transfers to the UK

More problematic, for the time being, are transfers of personal data to the UK. The EDPB's note indicates that, in the event  of a no-deal Brexit, the UK will become a 'third country' for the purposes of the GDPR. As a result, data streams from the EU towards that country may no longer flow freely as they do between EU-members, but must be subjected to one of the 'safeguards' envisioned by the GDPR, as set out below. 

Adequacy Decision

The adequacy decision is a mechanism, by which the European Commission may declare that a non-EER country offers a sufficient level of data protection in its legal system, and that no further measures by the data controller or processor are required for data streams to the UK. An adequacy decision for the UK would enable UK data transfers after a no-deal Brexit and is the preferred option under the withdrawal agreement. However, a possible Adequacy Decision for the UK is not expected before late 2020. Therefore, a 'legislation gap' between March 29th and the expected adequacy decision is highly likely.

Binding Corporate Rules

If the data is exported within a single group of companies or an international organisation, the company group may impose what are known as Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) on its respective entities. This is essentially a 'Code of Conduct' that brings the non-EU entities in line with the data protection standards already applicable to their EU counterparts. Companies may draft their own BCRs, but they must be approved by the data protection authority of the company's lead authority. Such approval processes  take time and are not a quick solution that can be reached before the 30 March deadline.

Standard Model Clauses

The Standard Model Clauses (SMC) is a list of data protection clauses pre-approved by the European Commission. If incorporated in the agreement with a non-EU processor or joint controller the SMC is sufficient to comply with the GDPR's provisions on data transfers outside the Union. Separate versions exists for controller-to-controller transfers (both the original version and the alternative version can be used, depending on the parties' preference), and for controller-to-processor transfers. The SMCs must be signed by both parties, and must not be amended in any way in order to be valid.

Use of the SMCs will often be the most practical option, as these do not hinge on approval from a data protection authority.

Derogations

In exceptional circumstances, the data controller may transfer data outside the EU without any of the above safeguards in place. In particular, the transfer is permitted where the data subject has given explicit consent for the transfer. This is different from the 'general' form of consent which can be used as a grounds for processing, as the data subject must be informed of the particular risks associated with the data transfer.

Codes of conduct and certification mechanisms

Lastly, companies may adhere to approved codes of conduct set out by industry-specific representative bodies or associations and approved by the EDPB. In addition, certification bodies may be created to certify and monitor companies on a voluntary basis. However, these provisions are something for the future – no code or body has acquired the required approval from the EDPB as yet. It is therefore not expected that such tools will be in place for post-Brexit data transfers very soon, though it may be useful to contact your industry association to check if they are likely to be adopted in the near future.

Team

Related news

14.10.2019 NL law
Kamerdebat over digitalisering van de overheid: aandacht voor bescherming burger vereist

Short Reads - Op 24 september 2019 zijn er vier moties in stemming gebracht én aangenomen door de Tweede Kamer. De moties hebben als gemeenschappelijke deler dat ze in het teken staan van de steeds groter wordende digitalisering bij de overheid. Het achterliggende doel van de moties is dat de burger voldoende beschermd moet worden tegen deze digitalisering.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
Margrethe Vestager to play matchmaker between enforcement and regulation

Short Reads - Current Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager may face even greater challenges in the next European Commission. President-elect Ursula von der Leyen has not only nominated Vestager for a second term as Commissioner for Competition, but has also asked her to coordinate the European Commission's digital agenda. As a result, Vestager may soon be tackling digital issues through competition enforcement whilst also proposing additional regulation to deal with these (and related) issues pre-emptively.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the EUR 33.6 million fine imposed on banking group HSBC for its participation in the euro interest rates derivatives cartel. Full annulment was granted based on the Commission's failure to provide sufficiently detailed reasoning for the first step of the fine calculation, establishing the value of sales. As the value of sales could not be established in a straightforward way, the Commission used a proxy. When doing so, the Commission needs to properly explain its reasoning to allow the companies fined to understand how it arrived at the proxy. 

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently blocked postal operator PostNL's acquisition of its only national competitor, Sandd, because this would create "a monopolist on the postal delivery market". However, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has overruled the ACM's decision on grounds of public interest. Invoking industrial policy or public interest reasons for merger clearance seems to be catching on.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) needs to cough up a total of EUR 120,000 in moral damages to three real estate traders. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal (CBb) agreed with the real estate traders that the annulment of the ACM's cartel decisions against them was insufficient compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of the length of the procedure and the press coverage of their cases.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring