Take-Aways (AI)
  • EDPB recom­mends a six-step pro­ce­du­re for checking and secu­ring data trans­fers to third count­ries in accordance with Schrems II.
  • Focus on exami­na­ti­on of the for­eign legal system and iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of sup­ple­men­ta­ry tech­ni­cal, con­trac­tu­al and orga­nizatio­nal measures.
  • High requi­re­ments remain unclear; recom­men­da­ti­ons offer litt­le con­cre­te gui­dance as to which mea­su­res are sufficient.

As pre­vious­ly announ­ced, the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board (EDSA) published fur­ther recom­men­da­ti­ons, dated Novem­ber 10, 2020, on how data export­ers who wish to con­ti­n­ue to trans­fer per­so­nal data to third count­ries out­side the EEA (third count­ries) under the Schrems II judgment should pro­ce­ed (Recom­men­da­ti­ons 01/2020 on mea­su­res that sup­ple­ment trans­fer tools to ensu­re com­pli­ance with the EU level of pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal data).

In the Schrems II ruling, the Euro­pean Court of Justi­ce (ECJ) sta­ted that the EU-US Pri­va­cy Shield is inva­lid, that the trans­fer of data to a third coun­try remains pos­si­ble on the basis of the Stan­dard Con­trac­tu­al Clau­ses (SCC), but that addi­tio­nal pro­tec­ti­ve mea­su­res may be requi­red. The­se have now been spe­ci­fi­ed in the published recommendations.

With this in mind, EDSA recom­mends a six-step approach:

  • Know your trans­fers”: Deter­mi­na­ti­on of the data trans­fers concerned;
  • Veri­fy the trans­fer tool your trans­fer reli­es on: Deter­mi­na­ti­on of the gua­ran­tees on which the data trans­fers con­cer­ned will take place;
  • Assess the law or prac­ti­ce of the third coun­try”: Exami­ne for­eign legal pro­vi­si­ons and offi­ci­al prac­ti­ces that may jeo­par­di­ze com­pli­ance with the safe­guards (e.g., exten­si­ve and dis­pro­por­tio­na­te access to per­so­nal data by local authorities);
  • Iden­ti­fy and adopt sup­ple­men­tal mea­su­res”: Iden­ti­fy the addi­tio­nal mea­su­res requi­red to com­ply with the requi­re­ments of the GDPR when trans­fer­ring data;
  • Take any for­mal pro­ce­du­re steps”: Imple­men­ta­ti­on of the addi­tio­nal mea­su­res, if neces­sa­ry with con­sul­ta­ti­on of the respon­si­ble super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties (e.g., checking whe­ther the imple­men­ted encryp­ti­on tech­ni­ques meet the requi­re­ments for secu­re transmission);
  • Re-eva­lua­te your data trans­fer at appro­pria­te inter­vals”: Regu­lar­ly check whe­ther the mea­su­res taken con­ti­n­ue to meet the requirements.

The focus here is on an exami­na­ti­on of the for­eign legal system (step 3) and the mea­su­res to be imple­men­ted on the basis of this (step 4).

In Annex 2, the EDSA then uses various sce­na­ri­os (use cases) to pro­vi­de examp­les of pos­si­ble pro­tec­ti­ve mea­su­res which gua­ran­tee a DSGVO-com­pli­ant data trans­fer in addi­ti­on to the gua­ran­tee made in accordance with Art. 46 GDPR can addi­tio­nal­ly ensu­re (con­cre­tizati­on of step 4 abo­ve; wher­eby refe­ren­ces to US law (step 3) can also be found.

In par­ti­cu­lar, the EDSA iden­ti­fi­es the fol­lo­wing mea­su­res, some of which it ela­bo­ra­tes on:

  • Tech­ni­cal Mea­su­reswhich, howe­ver, are not neces­s­a­ri­ly suf­fi­ci­ent, for exam­p­le, when a cloud pro­vi­der needs to access clear data in or from a sta­te with excess access capa­bi­li­ties or when a for­eign group com­pa­ny needs clear data for com­mon busi­ness pur­po­ses. Examp­les of such mea­su­res are: 
    • robust and cor­rect­ly imple­men­ted sta­te-of-the-artEncryp­ti­on, e.g.
      • of data pri­or to its trans­fer to a for­eign hosting pro­vi­der, whe­re the EDSA appears to requi­re that the key be main­tai­ned by the cus­to­mer or by a coun­try loca­ted in the EEA or a coun­try with ade­qua­te protection;
      • of data in tran­sit (if neces­sa­ry, in com­bi­na­ti­on with end-to-end encryp­ti­on of the data), if the data is mere­ly rou­ted through a third country;
    • Pseud­ony­mizati­on of the data pri­or to their trans­fer (e.g. for rese­arch pur­po­ses), pro­vi­ded that suf­fi­ci­ent infor­ma­ti­on for re-iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on is available exclu­si­ve­ly to the export­er – and not also to for­eign aut­ho­ri­ties, for exam­p­le – are kept in an EEA sta­te or a sta­te with an ade­qua­te level of pro­tec­tion and are pro­tec­ted by suf­fi­ci­ent measures.
  • Con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res, such as tho­se aimed at the fol­lo­wing, each of which is con­di­tio­nal on local law not pre­ven­ting the ful­fill­ment of the­se obligations: 
    • the duty to pro­vi­de spe­cial tech­ni­cal mea­su­res to meet;
    • Duty to inform of the importer in the event of inter­ven­ti­on by the aut­ho­ri­ties (which, howe­ver, can­not coun­ter the risk if the local law com­plies with the “Euro­pean Essen­ti­al Guarantees”);
    • Assu­ran­ces of the importer, e.g., that it has not instal­led back­doors, that it has not faci­li­ta­ted access to per­so­nal data, or that its local law does not requi­re it to install back­doors or other­wi­se pro­vi­de access to per­so­nal data (e.g., by issuing a key);
    • exten­ded Test­ing rights des Epor­teurs (Audit);
    • the duty to inform about access to aut­ho­ri­ties inform or that no acce­s­ses have been made up to a cer­tain point in time (“War­rant Cana­ry„);
    • Obli­ga­ti­ons of the importer to cer­tain Actionse.g., to exhaust legal reme­dies against sur­ren­der orders, to inform the reque­st­ing aut­ho­ri­ty of the bar­riers under the GDPR, and to inform the importer of accesses;
    • Mea­su­res for the Pro­tec­tion of the per­sons con­cer­nedThe data pro­tec­tion regu­la­ti­ons include, for exam­p­le, the pro­vi­so that access to clear data, e.g. in main­ten­an­ce cases, is only per­mit­ted with the con­sent of the data sub­ject; the obli­ga­ti­on to inform the data sub­jects about access by the aut­ho­ri­ties; and to sup­port the data sub­ject in asser­ting his or her rights.
  • Orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res: e.g., imple­men­ta­ti­on of poli­ci­es, pro­ce­s­ses, and stan­dards of the data export­er that the data importer must also adhe­re to, such as the following: 
    • Intra-Group poli­ci­es rela­ting to cross-bor­der transfers;
    • Docu­men­ta­ti­on of acce­s­ses or requests by the importer and cor­re­spon­ding infor­ma­ti­on of the export­er (and on request also of the per­sons concerned);
    • regu­lar publi­ca­ti­on of Trans­pa­ren­cy Reports;
    • Rein­force exi­sting data mini­mizati­on measures;
    • Pro­ce­s­ses for invol­ving the data pro­tec­tion offi­cer, legal depart­ment and inter­nal audit, if available;
    • Appli­ca­ti­on of strict data secu­ri­ty and data pro­tec­tion stan­dards (e.g. ISO standards);
    • Adopt and regu­lar­ly review inter­nal poli­ci­es to assess the ade­qua­cy of the measures.

In other words, the requi­re­ments for the addi­tio­nal gua­ran­tees are high. Abo­ve all, howe­ver, it remains open which mea­su­res or which com­bi­na­ti­ons of mea­su­res can pro­vi­de suf­fi­ci­ent pro­tec­tion under which cir­cum­stances. Thus, the EDSA’s recom­men­da­ti­ons are of litt­le help to practitioners.