Take-Aways (AI)
  • As of Sep­tem­ber 15, 2024, the Fede­ral Coun­cil will add the USA to the list of count­ries with an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion, pro­vi­ded that reci­pi­en­ts are cer­ti­fi­ed under the CH‑U.S. Data Pri­va­cy Framework.
  • Per­mit­ted data trans­fers to cer­ti­fi­ed US reci­pi­en­ts do not requi­re stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses (SCC) and gene­ral­ly no trans­fer impact assess­ment (TIA).
  • Export­ers are recom­men­ded to con­trac­tual­ly ensu­re the main­ten­an­ce of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on and to cle­ar­ly defi­ne the basis (DPF or SCC).

At its mee­ting on August 14, 2024, the Fede­ral Coun­cil final­ly deci­ded to add the USA to the list of count­ries with an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion in accordance with Annex 1 of the GDPR, pro­vi­ded that the respec­ti­ve reci­pi­ent is listed in accordance with the CH‑U.S. Data Pri­va­cy Frame­work is cer­ti­fi­ed. The amend­ment will enter into force on Sep­tem­ber 15, 2024 (see the Media release to this).

This has the fol­lo­wing effects in particular:

  • Various importers such as Micro­soft, Goog­le, Ama­zon and Sales­force have alre­a­dy cer­ti­fi­ed them­sel­ves in accordance with the CH‑U.S. Data Pri­va­cy Frame­work. As soon as the amend­ment to the GDPR is in force, an export­er who­se exports are sub­ject to the DPA can invo­ke the CH‑U.S. DPF.
  • Trans­fers within this frame­work are per­mit­ted wit­hout the Stan­dard Con­trac­tu­al Clau­ses (SCC) having to be concluded.
  • Intra-group trans­fers can also rely on the CH‑U.S. DPF, pro­vi­ded the U.S. reci­pi­ent is cer­ti­fi­ed (and can deal with the rele­vant obli­ga­ti­ons and requi­re­ments, inclu­ding the requi­re­ments for onward trans­fers within the group).
  • No Trans­fer Impact Assess­ment (TIA) is requi­red if a trans­fer is based on the (CH or EU‑U.S.) DPF.
  • If an export­er reli­es on the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of an importer, he should have the main­ten­an­ce of the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on con­trac­tual­ly guaranteed.
  • The­re is not­hing to be said against basing a trans­fer on the SCC in addi­ti­on to the (CH or EU‑U.S.) DPF; on the con­tra­ry, many com­pa­nies will pro­ce­ed in this way. In this case, a TIA can be dis­pen­sed with if the SCCs are only a safe­ty net (one can argue that a TIA remains neces­sa­ry, strict­ly spea­king, becau­se it is pro­ba­b­ly also an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tu­al obli­ga­ti­on under the SCCs). In Switz­er­land at least, the FDPIC will not requi­re a TIA if the CH‑U.S. DPF is a basis for the trans­fer. If a TIA is still car­ri­ed out, it may also be simp­ler becau­se the EU ade­qua­cy decis­i­on for the EU‑U.S. DPF alre­a­dy covers part of the rele­vant U.S. law – this also applies if a trans­fer is not cover­ed by the DPF. Howe­ver, export­ers should con­sider whe­ther the pri­ma­ry basis is the (Swiss or EU‑U.S.) DPF or the SCC. Alt­hough the­re is no clear obli­ga­ti­on to make and docu­ment this decis­i­on, the con­se­quen­ces are not the same. For exam­p­le, the requi­re­ments under the SCC and the DPF dif­fer in terms of the infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded to the per­sons concerned.
  • In the case of a trans­fer from Switz­er­land to a coun­try with an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion and an onward trans­fer from the­re to a US reci­pi­ent cer­ti­fi­ed under the EU-US DPF, the EU-US DPF covers the onward trans­fer. The DPA does not app­ly to this case of onward trans­fer (becau­se, unli­ke the GDPR, it does not “infect” the enti­re chain), nor does the US importer also have to be cer­ti­fi­ed under the CH-US DPF for this case.