EDSA: Stel­lung­nah­me zum Ange­mes­sen­heits­be­schluss betr. Japan

Der Euro­päi­sche Daten­schutz­aus­schuss (EDSA; Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board, der Nach­fol­ger der Arti­kel-29-Daten­­­schut­z­­grup­­pe) hat sich zum Ent­wurf des Ange­mes­sen­heits­be­schlus­ses der Kom­mis­si­on für Japan geäu­ssert (Opi­ni­on 28/2018 regar­ding the Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on Draft Imple­men­ting Deci­si­on on the ade­qua­te pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data in Japan, 5. Dezem­ber 2018). Der EDSA misst die­sem Beschluss gro­sse Bedeu­tung bei, weil er als erster Ange­mes­sen­heits­be­schluss unter der DSGVO Prä­ju­di­zwir­kung haben wird; ent­spre­chend detail­liert ist die Prü­fung des EDSA ausgefallen.

Der EDSA fasst das Ergeb­nis der Prü­fung wie folgt zusamme

[…] The EDPB wel­co­mes the efforts made by the Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on and the Japa­ne­se PPC to ali­gn as much as pos­si­ble the Japa­ne­se legal frame­work to the Euro­pean one. The impro­ve­ments brought in by the Sup­ple­men­ta­ry Rules to bridge some of the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween the two frame­works are very important and well received.

Howe­ver, fol­lo­wing a care­ful ana­ly­sis of the Commission’s draft ade­qua­cy deci­si­on as well as of the Japa­ne­se data pro­tec­tion frame­work, the EDPB noti­ces that a num­ber of con­cerns, cou­pled with the need for fur­ther cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons, remain. Fur­ther, this spe­ci­fic type of ade­qua­cy com­bi­ning an exi­sting natio­nal frame­work with addi­tio­nal spe­ci­fic rules also rai­ses questi­ons about its ope­ra­tio­nal imple­men­ta­ti­on. In light of the abo­ve, the EDPB recom­mends the Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on to address the con­cerns and requests for cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on rai­sed by the EDPB and pro­vi­de fur­ther evi­dence and explana­ti­ons regar­ding the issu­es being rai­sed. The EDPB also invi­tes the Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on to con­duct a review of this ade­qua­cy fin­ding (at least) every two years and not every four years as sug­ge­sted in the cur­rent draft ade­qua­cy decision.




Ähnliche Beiträge