Short Reads

Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

04.01.2019 NL law

Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

However, companies should still remain vigilant when dealing with information requests during investigations.

Several EU institutions, including the European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition, voiced concerns to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) about companies claiming the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) prevents them from cooperating with EU investigations. In response to these concerns, the EDPS clarified that the GDPR does not prevent companies from submitting information containing personal data to EU institutions, either voluntarily or in response to a legal obligation, as long as the EU institutions act within their powers. In addition, the EDPS stated that companies do not have a legal obligation to inform people about the disclosure of their personal data to EU institutions if this data is submitted with a view to carrying out a particular inquiry within the powers of the EU institutions. In the context of EU antitrust investigations, companies can therefore still be GDPR compliant while submitting information - either voluntarily or under a legal obligation - to the European Commission that may include personal data, as long as they double-check whether:

  • the request for information falls with the scope of the Commission's investigative powers;
  • the disclosure of the information is necessary to comply with the legal obligation;
  • the requested information is provided within the framework of a particular inquiry, or
  • the information is provided in order for the Commission to carry out a particular inquiry.

Similar to the GDPR not preventing companies from cooperating with EU investigations, Regulation 2018/1725 - the EU institutions' version of the GDPR – does not prevent EU institutions from conducting investigations under certain specified conditions. In regard of antitrust investigations, this is further explained in a recent Decision which states that the Commission may restrict certain rights of data subjects if the full application of these rights would jeopardise the purpose of its investigation. For the same reason, the Commission may also restrict data subjects' rights in relation to personal data obtained from other EU institutions, Member State authorities, third countries or international organisations. When doing so, the Commission will have to record and register its reasons for restricting the data subjects' rights. The Commission will also need to assess whether these restrictions are indeed proportionate and necessary for the purpose of the Commission's investigation. The Data Protection Officer will have to be informed whenever data subjects' rights are restricted and can carry out an independent review of the application of the restrictions to check whether they are in line with the Decision.

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring