Artic­le 29 Working Par­ty: draft gui­de­lines on Art. 49 GDPR (excep­ti­ons for trans­fers abroad)

The Artic­le 29 Working Par­ty has estab­lished the Draft gui­de­lines on Art. 49 GDPR sub­mit­ted. Inte­re­sted par­ties have until March 26, 2018 to sub­mit their comments.

Art. 49 GDPR allo­ws the dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data to a third coun­try in cer­tain excep­tio­nal cases, inclu­ding with the expli­cit con­sent of the data sub­jects, for the per­for­mance or pre­pa­ra­ti­on of a con­tract, or for other rea­sons. In it, the Art. 29 Working Par­ty pro­po­ses the fol­lo­wing gui­de­lines, among others:

    • The exemp­ti­on pro­vi­si­ons of Art. 49 GDPR are as fol­lows Gene­ral­ly rest­ric­ti­ve to be laid out and can Only in indi­vi­du­al cases be called;
    • Art. 49 GDPR can­not be invo­ked to over­ri­de Art. 48 GDPR. Data trans­fers based on a Mutu­al Legal Assi­stance Con­ven­ti­on (Mutu­al Legal Assi­stance Trea­ty, MLAT) should the­r­e­fo­re not be legi­ti­mi­zed by Art. 49 GDPR;
    • con­sent to the trans­fer of per­so­nal data to third count­ries is only effec­ti­ve if it is given express­ly and is spe­ci­fic to the data trans­mis­si­on the con­sen­ting per­son must also have the fol­lo­wing Suf­fi­ci­ent­ly infor­med be made, inclu­ding on the fol­lo­wing points: 
      • the con­cre­te Risksasso­cia­ted with the dis­clo­sure, such as that pro­ce­s­sing prin­ci­ples do not app­ly or that no super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty exists (as the case may be; howe­ver, the­se noti­ces can be expli­ci­t­ly stan­dar­di­zed, so they do not have to be adapt­ed to each indi­vi­du­al case);
      • the Recei­ver,
      • the Bene­fi­ci­a­ry Sta­tes,
      • the fact that the trans­mis­si­on is car­ri­ed out on the Con­sent should be based,
      • the fact that for the reci­pi­ent sta­tes a Ade­qua­cy Fin­ding miss­ing.
    • during trans­mis­si­on to the Con­tract ful­fill­ment or initia­ti­on a strict stan­dard is applied. The trans­fer to other Group com­pa­nies for shared ser­vices in the HR area, for exam­p­le, can­not be based on this fact;
    • the trans­mis­si­on for important rea­sons of the öffentlichen Interesses is not pos­si­ble sim­ply becau­se a for­eign aut­ho­ri­ty is con­duc­ting an inve­sti­ga­ti­on in the public inte­rest. Rather, it is neces­sa­ry that also the trans­mis­si­on to the inve­sti­ga­ting for­eign aut­ho­ri­ty is in the public inte­rest of the EU or a Mem­ber Sta­te; recipro­ci­ty con­side­ra­ti­ons must also be taken into account (cf. here);
    • the trans­mis­si­on is neces­sa­ry for the asser­ti­on, exer­cise or defen­se of Rechtsansprüchen inclu­des, among other things, the trans­mis­si­on in con­nec­tion with cri­mi­nal or admi­ni­stra­ti­ve pro­ce­e­dings, inclu­ding, for exam­p­le, in the con­text of pre-tri­al dis­co­very or for tri­al pre­pa­ra­ti­on, as long as the cor­re­spon­ding pro­ce­e­dings are not mere­ly a theo­re­ti­cal pos­si­bi­li­ty. Howe­ver, only the data neces­sa­ry for the rele­vant pur­po­ses is per­mis­si­ble in each case.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be