The Ad hoc Com­mit­tee on Data Pro­tec­tion (CAHDATA), dated May 3, 2016, issued a con­so­li­da­ted draft con­ven­ti­on 108 (PDF) sub­mit­ted. Open issues include the following:

  • Defi­ni­ti­on of con­sent (Art. 5 No. 2): reser­va­ti­on of the EU for coor­di­na­ti­on with the GDPR.
  • Pur­po­se limi­ta­ti­on and pro­por­tio­na­li­ty prin­ci­ples (Art. 5 No. 4 lit. b and e): reser­va­ti­on of the EU for coor­di­na­ti­on with the GDPR.
  • Data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion (Art. 6 No. 1): EU reser­va­ti­on on coor­di­na­ti­on with the GDPR.
  • Free of char­ge right to infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 8 lit. b): The EU wis­hes to expli­ci­t­ly men­ti­on the prin­ci­ple of free of char­ge in the wording.
  • Right to object (“right to be for­got­ten”; Art. 8 lit. d): EU reser­va­ti­on on coor­di­na­ti­on with the GDPR.
  • Scope of the bin­ding effect of the Con­ven­ti­on (or right of the Mem­ber Sta­tes to dero­ga­te from it; Art. 9 Nos. 1 and 2): reser­va­tions of the EU and the Mem­ber States.
  • Cross-bor­der data dis­clo­sure bet­ween mem­ber sta­tes that may only be limi­t­ed or sub­ject to aut­ho­rizati­on by har­mo­ni­zed pro­vi­si­ons of a regio­nal inter­na­tio­nal orga­nizati­on (i.e., e.g., EU law; Art. 12(1)): reser­va­ti­on by Russia:

    The pro­vi­si­on limi­ting the obli­ga­ti­ons of a Sta­te Par­ty in the sphe­re of trans­bor­der flows of per­so­nal data sub­ject to appro­pria­te rules of an inter­na­tio­nal regio­nal orga­nizati­on dif­fu­ses and wea­k­ens the legal regime of the Con­ven­ti­on. Fur­ther­mo­re, such a pro­vi­si­on de fac­to crea­tes a “pri­vi­le­ged” group of sta­tes with a les­ser scope of obli­ga­ti­ons within the frame­work of the Con­ven­ti­on. The Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on the­r­e­fo­re pro­po­ses to exclude this pro­vi­si­on from the text of indent 1 Artic­le 12 of the Con­ven­ti­on (pro­po­sal to dele­te the last sen­tence of this para­graph, start­ing “Such a par­ty may however […]”).

  • Dero­ga­ti­on from the pro­vi­si­ons on cross-bor­der data dis­clo­sure to ensu­re free­dom of expres­si­on (Art. 12 para. 7): EU reser­va­ti­on on coor­di­na­ti­on with the GDPR and from cri­ti­cism of the wording.