COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Data protection rules as a pillar of citizens empowerment and EUs approach to digital transition - two years of application of the General Data Protection Regulation
Date: 2020-06-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, data-processing law, digital single market, innovation, international cooperation, new technology, personal data, protection of privacy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.6.2020  SWD(2020) 115 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT […] Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Data protection as a pillar of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s approach to the digital transition - two years of application of the General Data Protection Regulation       {COM(2020) 264 final}  
 
 
Contents 
1  Context .................................................................................................................... 3 

2  Enforcement  of  the  GDPR  and  functioning  of  the  cooperation  and  consistency 
mechanisms .................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1  Use of strengthened powers by data protection authorities ............................. 4 

Specific issues for the public sector ....................................................................... 5 

Cooperation with other regulators ......................................................................... 6 

2.2  The cooperation and consistency mechanisms ................................................ 6 

One-stop-shop ........................................................................................................ 7 

Mutual assistance ................................................................................................... 8 

Consistency mechanism ......................................................................................... 8 

Challenges to be addressed .................................................................................... 9 

2.3  Advice and guidelines ................................................................................... 10 

Awareness raising and advice by data protection authorities .............................. 10 

Guidelines of the European Data Protection Board ............................................. 11 

2.4  Resources of the data protection authorities ................................................. 12 

3  Harmonised rules but still a degree of fragmentation and diverging approaches. 14 

3.1 

Implementation of the GDPR by the Member States .................................... 14 

Main issues relating to national implementation ................................................. 15 

Reconciliation  of  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  with  freedom  of 
expression and information .................................................................................. 16 

3.2 

Facultative specification clauses and their limits .......................................... 17 

Fragmentation linked to the use of facultative specification clauses ................... 17 

4  Empowering individuals to control their data ...................................................... 19 

5  Opportunities and challenges for organisations, in particular Small and Medium 
size Enterprises ............................................................................................................ 22 

Toolbox for businesses ........................................................................................ 25 

6  The application of the GDPR to new technologies .............................................. 26 

7 

International transfers and global cooperation ..................................................... 28 

7.1 

Privacy: a global issue ................................................................................... 28 

7.2  The GDPR transfer toolbox ........................................................................... 30 

Adequacy decisions ............................................................................................. 31 

Appropriate safeguards ........................................................................................ 35 

Derogations .......................................................................................................... 41 

Decisions by foreign courts or authorities: not a ground for transfers ................ 42 

7.3 

International cooperation in the area of data protection ................................ 44 

1 

 
 
 
The bilateral dimension ........................................................................................ 44 

The multilateral dimension .................................................................................. 46 

Annex I: Clauses for facultative specifications by national legislation 

Annex II: Overview of the resources of data protection authorities 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1  CONTEXT 

The General Data Protection Regulation1 (hereafter ‘the GDPR’) is the result of eight 
years  of  preparation,  drafting  and  inter-institutional  negotiations,  and  entered  into 
application on 25 May 2018 following a two-year transition period (May 2016 - May 
2018). Article 97 of the GDPR requires the Commission to report on the evaluation 
and review of the Regulation, starting with a first report after two years of application 
and every four years thereafter. 

The  evaluation  is  also  part  of  multi-faceted  approach  that  the  Commission  already 
followed  before  the  GDPR  entered  into  application  and  has  continued  to  actively 
pursue  since  then.  As  part  of  this  approach,  the  Commission  engaged  into  on-going 
bilateral dialogues with Member States on the compliance of national legislation with 
the  GDPR,  actively  contributed  to  the  work  of  the  European  Data  Protection  Board 
(hereafter  ‘the  Board’)  by  providing  its  experience  and  expertise,  supported  data 
protection authorities and maintained close contacts with a wide range of stakeholders 
on the practical application of the Regulation. 

The evaluation builds on the stocktaking exercise that the Commission carried out on 
the  first  year  of  the  GDPR  application  and  that  was  summarised  in  the 
Communication issued in July 20192. It also follows-up on the Communication on the 
application of the GDPR issued in January 20183. The Commission also adopted the 
Guidance on the use of personal data in the electoral context published in September 
2018 and the Guidance on apps supporting the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic 
issued in April 2020. 

Although  its  focus  is  on  the  two  issues  highlighted  in  Article  97(2)  of  the  GDPR, 
namely international transfers and the cooperation and consistency mechanisms, this 
evaluation takes a broader approach in order to address issues which have been raised 
by various actors during the last two years. 

To prepare the evaluation, the Commission took into account the contributions from: 

 
 

 

the Council4; 
the  European  Parliament  (Committee  on  Civil  Liberties,  Justice  and  Home 
Affairs)5; 
the  Board6  and  individual  data  protection  authorities7,  based  on  a  questionnaire 
sent by the Commission; 

1 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on 
the  protection  of  natural  persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC - OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88  
2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Data Protection 
as a trust-enabler in the EU and beyond – taking stock – COM(2019) 374 final, 24.7.2019  

4  Council  position  and  findings  on  the  application  of  the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  – 
14994/2/19 Rev2, 15.01.2020: 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14994-2019-REV-2/en/pdf 
5  Letter  of  the  LIBE  Committee  of  the  European  Parliament  of  21  February  2020  to  Commissioner 
Reynders, Ref.: IPOL-COM-LIBE D (2020)6525. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
 
 

the feedback from the members of the Multi-stakeholder expert Group to support 
the  application  of  the  GDPR8,  also  based  on  a  questionnaire  sent  by  the 
Commission; 

  and ad hoc contributions received from stakeholders. 

2  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  GDPR  AND  FUNCTIONING  OF  THE  COOPERATION  AND 

CONSISTENCY MECHANISMS 

The GDPR set  up an innovative  governance system and created the foundation of a 
truly  European  data  protection  culture  that  aims  to  ensure  not  only  a  harmonised 
interpretation,  but  also  a harmonised  application  and enforcement of data protection 
rules. Its pillars are the independent national data protection authorities and the newly 
established Board. 

As  the  data  protection  authorities  are  key  to  the  functioning  of  the  whole  EU  data 
protection  system, 
their  effective 
independence,  including  as  regards  adequate  financial,  human  and  technical 
resources. 

is  attentively  monitoring 

the  Commission 

It is still too early to fully assess the functioning of the cooperation and consistency 
mechanisms, given the short experience gathered so far9. In addition, data protection 
authorities  have  not  yet  used  the  full  array  of  tools  provided  for  by  the  GDPR  to 
strengthen their cooperation further. 

2.1  Use of strengthened powers by data protection authorities 

The GDPR establishes independent data protection authorities and provides them with 
harmonised  and  strengthened  enforcement  powers.  Since  the  GDPR  applies,  those 
authorities have been using of a wide range of corrective powers provided for in the 
GDPR,  such  as  administrative  fines  (22  EU/EEA  authorities)10,  warnings  and 
reprimands  (23),  orders  to  comply  with  data  subject’s  requests  (26),  orders  to  bring 
processing  operations  into  compliance  with  the  GDPR  (27),  and  orders  to  rectify, 
erase  or  restrict  processing  (17).  Around  half  of  the  data  protection  authorities  (13) 
have imposed temporary or definitive limitations on processing, including bans. This 
demonstrates  a  conscious  use  of  all  corrective  measures  provided  for  in  the  GDPR; 

6   Contribution of the Board to the evaluation of the GDPR under Article 97, adopted on 18 February 
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/other/contribution-edpb-evaluation-

2020: 
gdpr-under-article-97_en 

7   https://edpb.europa.eu/individual-replies-data-protection-supervisory-authorities_en 
8   The Multi-stakeholder expert group on the GDPR set up by the Commission involves civil society 

and business representatives, academics and practitioners: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3537 
The report of the Multi-stakeholder Group is available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=
21356 

9   This  fact  is  also  highlighted  in  particular  by  the  Council  in  its  position  and  findings  on  the 

application of the GDPR and by the Board in its contribution to the evaluation. 

10   The figures in parenthesis indicate the number of EU/EEA data protection authorities that made use 
of the listed power between May 2018 and the end of November 2019. See contribution from the 
Board on pages 32-33. 

4 

 
 
                                                                                                                                            
the data protection authorities did not shy away from imposing administrative fines in 
addition to or instead of other corrective measures, depending on the circumstances of 
individual cases. 

Administrative fines: 

Between  25  May  2018  and  30  November  2019,  22  EU/EEA  data  protection 
authorities  issued  approximately  785  fines.  Only  a  few  authorities  have  not  yet 
imposed  any  administrative  fines,  although  proceedings  that  are  currently  ongoing 
might  lead  to  such  fines.  Most  of  the  fines  related  to  infringements  against:  the 
principle of lawfulness;  valid consent; protection of sensitive data; the obligation of 
transparency, the rights of data subjects; and data breaches. 
Examples of fines imposed by data protection authorities include11: 

-  EUR  200 000  for  non-compliance  with  the  right  to  object  direct  marketing  in 

Greece;  

-  EUR 220 000 on a data broker company in Poland for failure to inform individuals 

that their data was being processed; 

-  EUR  250 000  imposed  on  the  Spanish  football  league  LaLiga,  for  lack  of 

transparency in the design of its smartphone application; 

-  EUR  14,5  million  for  infringement  of  data  protection  principles,  in  particular 

unlawful storage, by a German real estate company; 

-  EUR  18  million  for  unlawful  processing  of  special  categories  of  data  at  a  large 

scale by Austrian postal services; 

-  EUR  50  million  on  Google  in  France,  because  of  the  conditions  for  obtaining 

consent from users.  

The success of the GDPR should not be measured by the number of fines issued, since 
the  GDPR  provides  for  a  broader  palette  of  corrective  powers.  Depending  on  the 
circumstances,  for  example,  the  deterrent  effect  of  a  ban  on  processing  or  the 
suspension of data flows can be much stronger. 

Specific issues for the public sector 

The  GDPR  allows  Member  States  to  determine  whether  and  to  what  extent 
administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies. Where Member 
States make use of this possibility, this does not deprive the data protection authorities 
of using all the other corrective powers vis-à-vis public authorities and bodies12. 

Another specific issue is the supervision of courts: although the GDPR also applies to 
the  activities  of  courts,  these  are  exempted  from  supervision  by  data  protection 
authorities when acting in their judicial capacity. However, the Charter and the TFEU 
oblige  Member  States  to  entrust  an  independent  body  within  their  judicial  systems 
with the supervision of such processing operations13. 

11   Several of the decisions imposing fines are still subject to judicial review. 
12   Article 83(7) GDPR. 
13   Article 8(3) of the Charter; Article 16 (2) TFEU; recital 20 of the GDPR. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
Cooperation with other regulators 

As  announced  in  its  Communication  of  July  2019,  the  Commission  supports 
interaction  with  other  regulators,  in  full  respect  of  the  respective  competencies. 
Promising  areas  of  cooperation  include  consumer  protection  and  competition.  The 
Board indicated its willingness to engage with other regulators in particular in relation 
to  concentration in  digital  markets14. The Commission  recognised the importance of 
privacy and data protection as a qualitative parameter for competition15. Members of 
the Board participated in joint workshops with the Consumer Protection Cooperation 
Network  on  cooperation  on  better  enforcement  of  the  EU  consumer  and  data 
protection legislation. This approach will be pursued to foster common understanding 
and develop  practical  ways to  address  concrete  problems experienced by  consumers 
in particular in the digital economy. 

In order to ensure a consistent approach to privacy and data protection, and pending 
the  adoption  of  the  ePrivacy  Regulation,  close  cooperation  with  the  authorities 
competent  for  enforcing  the  ePrivacy  Directive16,  the  lex  specialis  in  the  area  of 
electronic  communications,  is  indispensable.  Closer  cooperation  with  the  authorities 
competent  under  the  NIS-Directive17,  and  the  NIS  Cooperation  Group,  would  be  to 
the mutual benefit of those authorities and the data protection authorities. 

2.2  The cooperation and consistency mechanisms 

The GDPR created the cooperation mechanism (one-stop-shop system for operators, 
joint  operations  and  mutual  assistance  between  data  protection  authorities)  and  the 
consistency mechanism in order to foster a uniform application of the data protection 
rules, through a consistent interpretation and the resolution of possible disagreement 
between authorities by the Board. 

The  Board,  gathering  all  data  protection  authorities,  has  been  established  as  an  EU 
body with legal personality and is fully operational, supported by a secretariat18. It is 
crucial  for  the  functioning  of  the  two  mechanisms  mentioned  above.  By  the  end  of 
2019,  the  Board  had  adopted  67  documents,  including  10  new  guidelines19  and  43 
opinions2021.  

14   Cf.  the  statement  of  the  Board  on  the  data  protection  impacts  of  economic  concentration, 
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_statement_economic_concentration_en.pdf. 

15   See Case COMP M. 8124 Microsoft/LinkedIn. 
16   Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning 
the  processing  of  personal  data  and  the  protection  of  privacy  in  the  electronic  communications 
sector  (Directive  on  privacy  and  electronic  communications)  -  OJ  L  201  ,  31/07/2002  P.  0037  - 
0047 

17   Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning 
measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union 
- OJ L 194, 19.7.2016, p. 1–30 

18   See details on the secretariat activities in the contribution from the Board, pages 24-26. 
19   In  addition  to  the  10  guidelines  adopted  by  the  Article  29  Working  Party  in  the  run-up  to  the 
GDPR’s  entry  into  application  and  endorsed  by  the  Board.  Moreover,  the  Board  has  adopted  4 
additional guidelines between January and end May 2020, and updated an existing one. 

20   42  of  these  opinions  were  adopted  under  Article  64  of  the  GDPR  and  one  was  adopted  under 

Article 70(1)(s) of the GDPR and concerned the adequacy decision with respect to Japan. 

21   See contribution from the Board, pages 18-23 for a complete overview of the Board’s activities. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
The important role of the Board emerged where there was a need to rapidly provide 
for consistent interpretation of the GDPR and to find immediately applicable solutions 
at  EU level.  For  example in  the context  of the COVID-19 outbreak, in  March 2020 
the Board adopted a statement on the processing of personal  data,  which deals  inter 
alia  with  the  lawfulness  of  processing  and  the  use  of  mobile  location  data  in  that 
context22,  and  in  April  2020  it  adopted  guidelines  on  the  processing  of  data 
concerning health for the purpose of scientific research in the context of the COVID-
19 outbreak  23 and guidelines on the use of location data and contact tracing tools in 
the  context  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak  24.  The  Board  also  made  a  significant 
contribution to design of the EU approach to tracing apps by the Commission and the 
Member States.  

Day-to-day cooperation between data protection authorities, whether they act in their 
own capacity or as members of the Board, is based on exchanges of information and 
notifications of cases opened by the authorities. In order to facilitate communication 
between authorities, the Commission gave significant support by providing them with 
an information exchange system25.Most authorities consider it as adapted to the needs 
of the cooperation and consistency mechanisms, even though it could be further fine-
tuned for example by making it more user-friendly. 

Although it is still early days, a number of achievements and challenges can already 
be  identified  and  are  presented  below.  They  show  that,  so  far,  data  protection 
authorities have made an effective use of the cooperation tools, with a preference for 
more flexible solutions.  

One-stop-shop 

As  a  general  rule,  in  cross-border  cases,  a  Member  State’s  data  protection  authority 
can  be  involved  either  (i)  as  lead  authority  when  the  main  establishment  of  the 
operator  is  located  in  this  Member  State,  or  (ii)  as  a  concerned  authority  when  the 
operator has an establishment on the territory of this Member State, when individuals 
in this Member State are substantially affected, or when a complaint has been lodged 
with them. 

Such close cooperation has become daily practice: since the date of application of the 
GDPR,  data  protection  authorities  in  all  Member  States  have  at  some  point  been 
identified either as lead authorities or as concerned authorities in cross-border cases, 
although to a different extent. 

From May 2018 until end 2019, the data protection authority in Ireland acted as lead 
authority  in  the  highest  number  of  cross-border  cases  (127),  followed  by  Germany 
(92),  Luxembourg  (87),  France  (64)  and  the  Netherlands  (45).  This  ranking  reflects 
notably  the  specific  situation  of  Ireland  and  Luxembourg,  who  host  several  big 
multinational tech companies. 

22   https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_statement_2020_ 
processingpersonaldataandcovid-19_en.pdf  
23   https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-032020-processing-

data-concerning-health-purpose_en. 

24 https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_20200420_contact_tracing_covid_ 
with_annex_en.pdf 
25   Internal Market Information System ('IMI'). 

7 

 
 
                                                 
The  ranking  is  different  as  regards  involvement  as  concerned  data  protection 
authorities with  the authorities in  Germany being involved in  the highest  number of 
cases (435), followed by Spain (337), Denmark (327), France (332) and Italy (306)26. 

Between  25  May  2018  and  31  December  2019,  141  draft  decisions  were  submitted 
through the one-stop-shop procedure, out of which 79 resulted in final decisions. At 
the  date  of  the  publication  of  this  report,  several  important  decisions  with  a  cross-
border  dimension  and  subject  to  the  one-stop-shop  mechanism  are  pending.  Among 
these decisions, some involve multinational big tech companies27. They are expected 
to  provide  clarification  and  to  contribute  to  an  increased  harmonisation  in  the 
interpretation of the GDPR. 

Mutual assistance 

Data protection authorities have made a wide use of the mutual assistance tool. 
By the end of 2019, there had been 115 Mutual Assistance28 procedures, in particular 
for  carrying  out  investigations,  most  of  them  by  the  data  protection  authorities  of 
Spain (26), Germany (20), Denmark (13), Poland (12) and Czech Republic (10). On 
the  other  hand,  Ireland  (19),  France  (11),  Austria  (10),  Germany  (10)  and 
Luxembourg (9) had received the most requests 29. 

The  vast  majority  of  authorities  find  mutual  assistance  a  very  useful  tool  for 
cooperation and have not encountered any particular obstacle to applying the mutual 
assistance procedure. The voluntary mutual assistance exchange, which does not have 
a  legal  deadline  or  strict  duty  to  answer,  has  been  used  more  frequently,  in  2 427 
procedures.  The  data  protection  authority  of  Ireland  sent  and  received  the  highest 
number  of  mutual  assistance  requests  (527  sent  and  359  received),  followed  by 
German authorities (260 sent/356 received). 
On  the  other  hand,  joint  operations30,  which  would  make  it  possible  for  data 
protection authorities of several Member States to be involved already at the level of 
the  investigations  of  cross-border  cases,  have  not  been  conducted  yet.  Reflection  is 
on-going  within  the  Board  on  the  practical  implementation  of  this  tool  and  how  to 
promote its use.  

Consistency mechanism 

So  far  only  the  first  leg  of  the  consistency  mechanism  has  been  used,  namely  the 
adoption  of  Board  opinions31.  On  the  other  hand,  no  dispute  resolution  at  Board 
level32 or urgency procedure33 has been triggered yet. 

26   See contribution from the Board, page 8. 
27   For instance, on 22 May 2020, the Irish data protection authority has submitted a draft decision to 
other  concerned  authorities,  in  accordance  with  Article  60  of  the  Regulation,  concerning  an 
investigation  into  Twitter  International  Company  regarding  data  breach  notification.  On  the  same 
day, the Irish data  protection authority also announced that a  draft decision  on WhatsApp Ireland 
Limited for submission under Article 60 was in preparation, concerning transparency including in 
relation to transparency around what information is shared with Facebook. 

28   Article 61 GDPR. 
29   See contribution from the Board, pages 12-14. 
30   Article 62 GDPR. 
31   Based on Article 64 GDPR. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Between 25 May 2018 and 31 December 2019, the Board issued 36 opinions in  the 
context  of  the  adoption  of  measures  by  one  of  its  members34.  Most  of  them  (31) 
concerned  the  adoption  of  national  lists  of  processing  operations  requiring  a  data 
protection impact assessment. Two opinions concerned Binding Corporate Rules, two 
others  concerned  draft  accreditation  requirements  for  a  code  of  conduct  monitoring 
body, and one concerned Standard Contractual Clauses35. 
Furthermore,  the  Board  adopted,  on  request,  six opinions36.  Three  of  these  opinions 
concerned  national  lists  identifying  processing  which  does  not  require  a  data 
protection  impact  assessment.  The  others  concerned  respectively  an  administrative 
arrangement  for  the  transfer  of  personal  data  between  EEA  and  non-EEA  financial 
supervisory  authorities,  the  interplay  between  the  ePrivacy  Directive  and  the  GDPR 
and the competence of a supervisory authority in case of a  change in  circumstances 
relating to the main or single establishment.37  

Challenges to be addressed 

Although the data protection authorities have been very actively working together in 
the  Board  and  already  intensively  use  the  cooperation  tool  of  mutual  assistance, 
building a truly data protection common culture is still an ongoing process. 

In  particular,  the  handling  of  cross-border  cases  calls  for  a  more  efficient  and 
harmonised  approach  and  the  effective  use  of  all  cooperation  tools  provided  in  the 
GDPR. There is a very broad consensus on this point since it was raised in different 
ways  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Data  Protection 
Supervisor, stakeholders (within the Multi-stakeholder Group and beyond) and by the 
data protection authorities. 

The main issues to be tackled in this context include differences in: 

  national  administrative  procedures,  concerning  in  particular:  complaint  handling 
procedures,  the  admissibility  criteria  for  complaints,  the  duration  of  proceedings 
due  to  different  timeframes  or  the  absence  of  any  deadlines,  the  moment  in  the 
procedure when the right to be heard is granted, the information and involvement 
of complainants during the procedure; 

 

 

interpretations of concepts relating to the cooperation mechanism, such as relevant 
information,  the  notion  of  “without  delay”,  “complaint”,  the  document  which  is 
defined  as  the  “draft  decision”  of  the  lead  data  protection  authority,  amicable 
settlement (in particular the procedure leading to amicable settlement and the legal 
form of the settlement); and 

the  approach  to  when  to  start  the  cooperation  procedure,  involve  the  concerned 
data  protection  authorities  and  communicate  information  to  them.  Complainants 
also lack clarity on how their cases are handled in cross-border situations, as was 
stressed  by  several  members  of  the  Multi-stakeholder  Group.  Moreover, 

32   Article 65 GDPR. 
33   Article 66 GDPR. 
34   Under Article 64(1) GDPR. 
35   Article 28(8) GDPR. 
36   Under Article 64(2) GDPR. 
37   See contribution from the Board, page 15. 

9 

 
 
                                                                                                                                            
businesses mention that in certain instances national data protection authorities did 
not  refer  cases  to  the  lead  data  protection  authority,  but  handled  them  as  local 
cases.  

The Commission welcomes the Board’s announcement that it has started a reflection 
on how to address these concerns. In particular, the Board indicated that it will clarify 
the  procedural  steps  involved  in  the  cooperation  between  the  lead  data  protection 
authority  and 
the  concerned  data  protection  authorities,  analyse  national 
administrative  procedural  laws,  work  towards  a  common  interpretation  of  key 
concepts, and strengthen communication and cooperation (including joint operations). 
The  Board’s  reflection  and  analysis  should  lead  to  devising  more  efficient  working 
arrangements  in  cross-border  cases38,  including  by  building  on  the  expertise  of  its 
members and by strengthening the involvement of its secretariat. In addition, it should 
be noted that the Board’s responsibility in ensuring a consistent interpretation of the 
GDPR cannot be discharged by simply finding the lowest common denominator. 

Finally, as an EU body the Board must also apply EU administrative law and ensure 
transparency in the decision making process. 

2.3  Advice and guidelines 

Awareness raising and advice by data protection authorities 

Several data protection authorities created new tools, such as help lines for individuals 
and  businesses,  and  toolkits  for  businesses39.  Many  operators  welcome  the 
pragmatism shown by these authorities in assisting with the application of the GDPR. 
In  particular,  several  of 
them  have  actively  and  closely  collaborated  and 
communicated  with  data  protection  officers,  including  through  data  protection 
officers’  associations.  Many  authorities  also  issued  guidelines  covering  the  data 
protection  officers’  role  and  obligations  to  support  data  protection  officers  during 
their daily activities and held seminars specifically designed for them. However, this 
is not the case for all data protection authorities. 

Feedback  received  from  stakeholders  also  points  to  a  number  of  issues  as  regards 
guidance and advice: 

 

the lack of a consistent approach and guidance between national data protection 
authorities  on  certain  issues  (e.g.  on  cookies40,  the  application  of  legitimate 
interest, on data breach notifications or on data protection impact assessments) or 
even between data protection authorities within the same Member States (e.g. in 
Germany on the notions of controller and processor); 

 

the inconsistency of guidelines adopted at national level with those adopted by the 
Board;  

38   As also pointed out in the Council position and findings. 
39   See below under point 7. 
40   Pending the adoption of the ePrivacy Regulation, close cooperation with the competent authorities 
responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  the  ePrivacy  Directive  in  the  Member  States  is  necessary.  In 
accordance  with  that  Directive,  in  some  Member  States  the  authorities  competent  for  enforcing 
Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (which sets out the conditions under which "cookies” may be 
set  and  accessed  on  a  user’s  terminal  equipment)  are  not  the  same  as  the  GDPR  supervisory 
authorities. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
 

the absence of public consultations on certain guidelines adopted at national level; 

  different 

levels  of  engagement  with  stakeholders  among  data  protection 

authorities; 

  delays in receiving responses to information requests; 

  difficulties  in  obtaining  practical  and  valuable  advice  from  data  protection 

authorities; 

 

the  need  to  increase  the  level  of  sectoral  expertise  in  some  data  protection 
authorities (e.g. in the health and pharma sector). 

Several  of  these  issues  are  also  linked  to  the  lack  of  resources  in  several  data 
protection authorities (see below). 
Divergent practices as regards the notification of data breaches41 

While  the  Council  highlights  the  burden  caused  by  such  notifications,  there  are 
significant discrepancies on notifications between Member States: whereas from May 
2018 to end November 2019, in most Member States the total number of data breach 
notifications was below 2 000, and in 7 Member States between 2 000 and 10 000, the 
Dutch  and  German  data  protection  authorities  reported  respectively  37 400  and 
45 600 notifications42. 

This may point to a lack of consistent interpretation and implementation, despite the 
existence of EU-level guidelines on data breach notifications. 

Guidelines of the European Data Protection Board 

To  date,  the  Board  adopted  more  than  20  guidelines  covering  key  aspects  of  the 
GDPR43.  The  guidelines  are  an  essential  tool  for  the  consistent  application  of  the 
GDPR  and  have,  therefore,  been  to  a  large  extent  welcomed  by  stakeholders. 
Stakeholders  have  appreciated  the  systematic  (6  to  8  weeks)  public  consultation. 
However, they ask for more dialogue with the Board. In this context,  the practice of 
organising  workshops  on  targeted  topics  prior  to  drafting  guidelines  should  be 
continued  and  amplified  to  ensure  the  transparency,  inclusiveness,  and  relevance  of 
the  Board’s  work.  Stakeholders  also  request  that  the  interpretation  of  the  most 
contentious  issues  should  be  addressed  in  the  guidelines,  since  these  are  subject  to 
public consultation, and not within opinions under Article 64(2) of the GDPR. Some 
stakeholders  also  call  for  more  practical  guidelines,  detailing  the  application  of 
concepts  and  provisions  of  the  GDPR44.  Members  of  the  Multi-stakeholder  Group 
stress  the  need  for  more  concrete  examples  to  reduce  the  room  for  diverging 
interpretations between  data protection authorities as much  as possible.  At the same 
time,  the  requests  to  clarify  how  to  apply  the  GDPR  and  to  provide  legal  certainty 

41   Article 33 GDPR. 
42   See contribution from the Board page 35. 
43   The  work on guidelines already started before the entry into application of the GDPR on 25 May 
2018  in  the  context  of  the  Article  29  Working  Party.  See  the  full  list  of  guidelines  at 
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/general-guidance/gdpr-guidelines-recommendations-best-
practices_en 

44   This has also been highlighted by the European Parliament and by the Council. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
should  not  lead  to  additional  requirements  or  diminish  the  advantages  of  the  risk-
based approach and the accountability principle.  

The  topics  on  which  stakeholders  would  like  additional  guidelines  from  the  Board 
include:  the  scope  of  data  subjects’  rights  (including  in  the  employment  context); 
updates  to  the  opinion  on  processing  based  on  legitimate  interest;  the  notions  of 
controller, joint controller and processor and the necessary arrangements between the 
parties45;  the  application  of  the  GDPR  to  new  technologies  (such  as  blockchain  and 
artificial  intelligence);  processing  in  the  context  of  scientific  research  (including  in 
relation 
the  processing  of  children’s  data; 
pseudonymisation and anonymisation; and the processing of health data.  

international  collaboration); 

to 

The Board has already indicated that it will issue guidelines on many of these topics 
and the work already started on several of them (e.g. on the application of legitimate 
interest as a legal basis for processing). 

Stakeholders  ask  the  Board  to  update  and  revise  existing  guidelines  where 
appropriate,,  taking  into  account  the  experience  gathered  since  their  publication  and 
taking the opportunity to go into more detail where needed. 

2.4  Resources of the data protection authorities 

Providing  each  data  protection  authority  with  the  necessary  human,  technical  and 
financial  resources,  premises  and  infrastructure  is  a  prerequisite  for  the  effective 
performance  of  their  tasks  and  exercise  of  their  powers,  and  therefore  an  essential 
condition for their independence46.  

Most  data  protection  authorities  benefited  from  an  increase  in  staff  and  resources 
since the GDPR entered into force in 201647. However many of them still report that 
they do not have sufficient resources48. 

Number of staff working for national data protection authorities 

The  total  number  of  staff  working  in  EEA  data  protection  authorities  considered 
together has increased by 42% between 2016 and 2019 (by 62% if one considers the 
2020 forecast).  

The  number  of  staff  has  increased  in  most  authorities  during  this  period,  with  the 
biggest  increase  (as  a  percentage)  registered  for  authorities  in  Ireland  (+169%),  the 
Netherlands (+145%), Iceland (+143%), Luxembourg (+126%) and Finland (+114%). 
On the other hand, the number of staff decreased in several data protection authorities, 
with  the  sharpest  decreases  observed  in  Greece  (-15%),  Bulgaria  (-14%),  Estonia  (-
11%), Latvia (-10%) and Lithuania (-8%). In some authorities, the decrease in staff is 
also due to the departure of data protection experts to the private sector offering more 
attractive conditions. 

45   Guidelines from the Board on controllers and processors are currently in preparation. 
46   See Article 52(4) GDPR. 
47   The  Regulation entered into force in May 2016 and into application in May 2018, following a 2-

year transition period. 

48   See contribution from the Board, pages 26-30. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
In general, the forecast for 2020 provides for an increase of staff compared to 2019, 
except  for  authorities  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Italy,  Sweden  and  Iceland  (where  staff 
numbers  are expected to  remain stable), Cyprus  and Denmark (where staff numbers 
are expected to decrease). 
The  German  data  protection  authorities49  together  have  the  highest  number  of  staff 
(888  in  2019/1002  in  2020  forecast),  followed  by  the  data  protection  authorities  in 
Poland  (238/260),  France  (215/225),  Spain  (170/220),  the  Netherlands  (179/188), 
Italy (170/170) and Ireland (140/176). 

The  data  protection  authorities  with  the  lowest  staff  numbers  are  those  in  Cyprus 
(24/22), Latvia (19/31), Iceland (17/17), Estonia (16/18) and Malta (13/15).  

Budget of national data protection authorities 

The total budget of EEA data protection authorities considered together has increased 
by 49% between 2016 and 2019 (by 64% if one considers the 2020 forecast).  

The budget of most authorities increased during this period, with the biggest increase 
(as  a  percentage)  registered  for  authorities  in  Ireland  (+223%),  Iceland  (+167%), 
Luxembourg  (+165%),  the  Netherland  (+130%)  and  Cyprus  (+114%).  On  the  other 
hand, some authorities saw only a small budget increase, with the smallest increases 
registered for data protection authorities in Estonia (7%), Latvia (4%), Romania (3%) 
and Belgium (1%), while the authority in France experienced a decrease (-2%). 

In general, the forecast for 2020 provides for an increase in budget compared to 2019, 
except  for  the  authorities  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Estonia  and  the  Netherlands  (whose 
budgets are expected to remain stable). 

The  data  protection  authorities  with  the  highest  budget  are  those  of  Germany  (EUR 
76.6  million  in  2019/EUR  85.8  million  in  the  2020  forecast),  Italy  (29.1/30.1),  The 
Netherlands (18.6/18.6), France (18.5/20.1) and Ireland (15.2/16.9). 

The  authorities  with  the  lowest  budget  are  those  of  Croatia  (EUR  1.2  million  in 
2019/EUR  1.4  million  in  the  2020  forecast),  Romania  (1.1/1.3),  Latvia  (0.6/1.2), 
Cyprus (0.5/0.5) and Malta (0.5/0.6). 

The table in Annex II provides an overview of the human and budgetary resources of 
national data protection authorities. 

Besides  impacting  their  capacity  to  enforce  rules  at  national  level,  the  lack  of 
resources  also  limits  data  protection  authorities’  capacity  to  participate  in  and 
contribute  to  the  cooperation  and  consistency  mechanisms,  and  to  the  work  carried 
out within the Board. As highlighted by the Board, the success of the one-stop-shop 
mechanism  depends  on  the  time  and  effort  that  data  protection  authorities  can 
dedicate  to  the  handling  of  and  cooperation  on  individual  cross-border  cases.  The 
resource issue is compounded by the authorities’ increased role in the supervision of 
large-scale  IT  systems  that  are  currently  being  developed.  Furthermore,  the  data 

49   There  are  18  authorities  in  Germany,  of  which  one  is  a  federal  authority  and  17  are  regional 

authorities (including two in Bavaria). 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
protection authorities in Ireland and Luxembourg have specific resource needs given 
their  role  as  lead  authorities  for  the  enforcement  of  the  GDPR  vis-à-vis  big  tech 
companies, which are located mostly in these Member States. 

While  the  Council  points  to  the  impact  of  the  cooperation  mechanism  and  its 
deadlines  on  the  work  of  data  protection  authorities50,  the  GDPR  obliges  Member 
States  to  provide  their  national  data  protection  authorities  with  adequate  human, 
financial and technical resources51. 

The  secretariat  of  the  Board,  which  is  provided  by  the  European  Data  Protection 
Supervisor52,  is  currently  composed  of  20  people,  including  legal,  IT  and 
communication experts. It is to be assessed whether this figure needs to evolve in the 
future  in  light  of  the  effective  fulfilment  of  its  function  of  analytical,  administrative 
and  logistical  support  to  the  Board  and  its  subgroups,  including  through  the 
management of the information exchange system, 

3  HARMONISED RULES BUT STILL A DEGREE OF FRAGMENTATION AND DIVERGING 

APPROACHES  

The GDPR provides for a consistent approach to data protection rules throughout the 
EU,  replacing  the  different  national  regimes  that  existed  under  the  1995  Data 
Protection Directive. 

3.1 

Implementation of the GDPR by the Member States 

The GDPR has been directly applicable in all Member States since 25 May 2018. It 
obliged  Member  States  to  legislate,  in  particular  to  set  up  national  data  protection 
authorities and the general conditions for their members, in order to ensure that each 
authority acts  with complete independence in performing its tasks and exercising its 
powers  in  accordance  with  the  GDPR.  Legal  obligations  and  public  tasks  can 
constitute a legal ground for the processing of personal data only if they are laid down 
in  (Union  or)  national  law.  In  addition,  Member  States  must  lay  down  rules  on 
penalties in particular for infringements not subject to  administrative fines and must 
reconcile  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  with  the  right  to  freedom  of 
expression  and  information.  National  law  can  also  provide  for  a  legal  basis  for  the 
exemption from the general prohibition for processing special categories of personal 
data, for example for reasons of substantial public interest in the area of public health, 
including  protection  against  serious  cross-border  threats  to  health.  Furthermore, 
Member States must ensure the accreditation of certification bodies.  

The  Commission  is  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  GDPR  in  national 
legislation. At the time of writing this report, all Member States except Slovenia has 
adopted  new  data  protection  legislation  or  adapted  their  law  in  this  area.  The 

50   Article 60 GDPR. 
51   Article 52(4) GDPR. 
52   Article 75 GDPR. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Commission  therefore  requested  Slovenia  to  provide  clarification  on  the  progress 
made to date and urged it to finalise that process53. 

In  addition,  the  compliance  of  national  legislation  with  data  protection  rules  as 
regards  the  Schengen  acquis  is  also  assessed  in  the  context  of  the  Schengen 
Evaluation  Mechanism  coordinated  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  and 
Member  States  jointly  evaluate  how  countries  implement  and  apply  the  Schengen 
acquis in a number of areas; for data protection this concerns large-scale IT systems 
like the Schengen Information System and the Via Information System and includes 
the  role  of  data  protection  authorities  in  supervising  the  processing  of  personal  data 
within those systems. 

Work  on  adapting  sectoral  laws  is  still  on-going  at  national  level.  Following  the 
GDPR’s incorporation into  the European Economic Area Agreement, its application 
was extended to Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. These countries have also adopted 
their national data protection laws.  

The Commission will make use of all the tools at its disposal, including infringement 
procedures, to ensure that Member States comply with the GDPR. 

Main issues relating to national implementation 

The  main  issues  identified  to  date  as  part  of  the  ongoing  assessment  of  national 
legislation and bilateral exchanges with Member States include:  

  Restrictions  to  the  GDPR’s  application:  some  Member  States,  for  example, 

completely exclude the activities of the national parliament ;  

  Differences  in  the  applicability  of  national  specification  laws.  Some  Member 
States link the applicability of their national law to the place where the goods or 
services  are  offered,  others  to  the  place  of  establishment  of  the  controller  or 
processor.  This  runs  contrary  to  the  objective  of  harmonisation  pursued  by  the 
GDPR; 

  National  laws that raise  questions on the proportionality of the interference with 
the  right  to  data  protection.  For  example,  the  Commission  launched  an 
infringement  procedure  against  a  Member  State  that  had  enacted  legislation 
requiring  judges  to  disclose  specific  information  about  their  non-professional 
activities, which is  incompatible with  the right  to respect  for private life and the 
right to the protection of personal data54; 

  The  absence  of  an  independent  body  for  the  supervision  of  data  processing  by 

courts acting in their judicial capacity55. 

  Legislation  in  areas  fully  regulated  by  the  GDPR  beyond  the  margin  for 
specifications  or  restrictions.  This  is,  in  particular,  the  case  where  national 

53   It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  national  data  protection  authority  in  Slovenia  is  set  up  based  on  the 
current  national  data  protection  law  and  supervise  the  application  of  the  GDPR  in  that  Member 
State. 

54   This infringement procedure concerns the Polish law on the judiciary of 20 December 2019, which 
affects the independence of the judges and concerns, inter alia, the disclosure of the engagement of 
judges in non-professional activities: 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_772. 

55   See Article 8(3) of the Charter; Article 16 TFEU; recital 20 of the GDPR. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
provisions  determine  conditions  for  processing  based  on  legitimate  interest,  by 
providing for the balancing of the respective interests of the controller and of the 
individuals  concerned,  while  the  GDPR  obliges  each  and  every  controller  to 
undertake such balancing individually and avail itself of that legal basis.  

  Specifications and additional requirements beyond processing for compliance with 
a  legal  obligation  or  performance  of  a  public  task  (e.g.  for  video  surveillance  in 
the  private  sector  or  for  direct  marketing);  and  for  concepts  used  in  the  GDPR 
(e.g. ‘large scale’ or ‘erasure’). 

Some  of  these  issues  may  be  clarified  by  the  Court  of  Justice  in  cases  that  are  still 
pending56. 

Reconciliation  of  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  with  freedom  of 
expression and information 

A specific issue concerns the implementation of the obligation for Member States to 
reconcile  by  law  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  with  freedom  of 
expression and information57. This issue is very complex, since an assessment of the 
balancing  between  these  fundamental  rights  must  also  take  into  account  provisions 
and safeguards in press and media laws.  

The  assessment  of  Member  State  legislation  shows  different  approaches  to  the 
reconciliation  of  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  with  freedom  of 
expression and information: 

  Some  Member  States  lay  down  the  principle  of  precedence  of  freedom  of 
expression or exempt in principle the application of entire chapters mentioned in 
Article  85(2)  GDPR  if  processing  for  journalistic  purposes  and  for  academic, 
artistic and literary expression is at stake. To a certain extent, media laws provide 
for some safeguards as regards data subject rights. 

  Some Member States lay down the precedence of the protection of personal data 
and  exempt  the  application  of  data  protection  rules  only  in  specific  situations, 
such as where a person with public status is concerned.  

  Other  Member  States  provide  for  a  certain  balancing  by  the  legislator  and/or  a 
case-by-case  assessment  as  regards  derogations  from  certain  provisions  of  the 
GDPR. 

The  Commission  will  continue  its  assessment  of  national  legislation  on  the  basis  of 
the  requirements  of  the  Charter.  The  reconciliation  must  be  provided  for  by  law, 
respect  the  essence  of  those  fundamental  rights,  and  be  proportional  and  necessary 
(Article 52(1) of the Charter). Data protection rules should not affect the exercise of 
freedom  of  expression and  information  especially  by creating a chilling  effect  or by 
being interpreted as a way to put pressure on journalists to disclose their sources. 

56   For  example,  the  exemption  of  a  parliamentary  committee  from  the  application  of  the  GDPR  is 

subject to a pending court case for a preliminary ruling (C-272/19). 

57   Article 85 GDPR. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2  Facultative specification clauses and their limits 

The GDPR gives Member States the possibility to further specify its application in a 
limited  number  of  areas.  This  margin  for  national  legislation  is  to  be  distinguished 
from the obligation to implement certain other provisions of the GDPR as mentioned 
above. The clauses for facultative specifications are listed in Annex I. 

The margins for Member State law are subject to the conditions and limits set by the 
GDPR  and  do  not  allow  for  a  parallel  national  data  protection  regime58.  Member 
States  are  obliged  to  amend  or  repeal  the  national  data  protection  laws,  including 
sectoral legislation with data protection aspects.  

Furthermore,  related  Member  State  legislation  must  not  include  provisions  which 
might  create  confusion  regarding  the  direct  application  of  the  GDPR.  Therefore, 
where  the  GDPR  provides  for  specifications  or  restrictions  of  its  rules  by  Member 
State  law,  Member  States  may  incorporate  elements  of  the  GDPR  in  their  national 
law, to the extent necessary to ensure coherence and to render the national provisions 
comprehensible to the persons to whom they apply59. 

Stakeholders  consider  that  Member  States  should  reduce  or  refrain  from  using 
facultative  specification  clauses  since  they  do  not  contribute  to  harmonisation.  The 
national divergences in both the implementation of the laws and their interpretation by 
data  protection  authorities  considerably  increase  the  cost  of  legal  compliance  across 
the EU. 

Fragmentation linked to the use of facultative specification clauses 

  Age limit for children consent for information society services 

A number of Member States have made use of the possibility to provide for a lower 
age than 16 years for consent in relation to information society services (Article 8(1) 
GDPR).  Whereas  nine  Member  States  apply  the  16  years’  age  limit,  eight  Member 
States opted for 13 years, six for 14 years and three for 15 years.60 

Consequently, a company providing information society services to minors across the 
EU  has  to  distinguish  between  the  ages  of  potential  users,  depending  in  which 
Member  State  they  reside.  This  is  contrary  to  the  key  objective  of  the  GDPR  to 
provide for an equal level of protection to individuals and of business opportunities in 
all Member States. 

Such differences lead to situations where the Member State in which the controller is 
established  provides  for  another  age  limit  than  the  Member  States  where  the  data 
subjects are residing. 

58   The  widely  used  term  of  “opening  clauses”  to  mean  specification  clauses  is  misleading  since  it 
might give the impression that Member States have margins of manoeuvre beyond the provisions of 
the Regulation. 

59   Recital 8 of the GDPR. 
60   13 years for Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Malta, Portugal and Sweden; 14 years for 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Spain,  Italy  and  Lithuania;  15  years  for  Czech  Republic,  Greece  and 
France;  16  years  for  Germany,  Hungary,  Croatia,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Romania and Slovakia. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Health and research 

When  implementing  derogations  from  the  general  prohibition  for  processing  special 
categories  of  personal  data61,  Member  State  legislation  follows  different  approaches 
as regards the level of specification and safeguards, including for health and research 
purposes.  Most  Member  States  introduced  or  maintained  further  conditions  for  the 
processing of genetic data, biometric data or data concerning health. This is also true 
for derogations related to data subject rights for research purposes62, both as regards 
the extent of the derogations and the related safeguards.  

The  Board’s  future  guidelines  on  the  use  of  personal  data  in  the  field  of  scientific 
research will contribute to a harmonised approach in this area. The Commission will 
provide  input  to  the  Board,  in  particular  as  regards  health  research,  including  in  the 
form of concrete questions and analysis of concrete scenarios that it received from the 
research community. It would be helpful if these guidelines could be adopted before 
the  launch  of  Horizon  Europe  Framework  Programme  in  view  of  harmonising  data 
protection  practices  and  facilitating  data  sharing  for  research  advancements. 
Guidelines  from  the  Board  on  the  processing  of  personal  data  in  the  area  of  health 
could also be useful. 

The GDPR provides a robust framework for national legislation in the area of public 
health  and  explicitly  includes  cross-border  health  threats  and  the  monitoring  of 
epidemics and their spread63, which was relevant in the context of the fight against the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  

At  EU  level,  on  8  April  2020  the  Commission  adopted  a  Recommendation  for  a 
toolbox  for  the  use  of  technology  and  data  in  this  context,  including  mobile 
applications  and  the  use  of  anonymised  mobility  data64,  and  on  16  April  2020  a 
guidance  on  apps  supporting  the  fight  against  the  pandemic  in  relation  to  data 
protection65. The Board published a statement on data processing in this context on 19 
March  202066,  followed  on  21  April  2020  by  guidelines  on  data  processing  for 
research purposes and on the use of localisation data and contact tracing tools in this 
context67. These recommendations and guidelines clarify how the principles and rules 
on  the  protection  of  personal  data  apply  in  the  context  of  the  fight  against  the 
pandemic.  

  Extensive restrictions of data subjects’ rights 

Most national data protection laws that restrict data subject’s rights do not specify the 
objectives  of  general  public  interest  safeguarded  by  these  restrictions  and/or  do  not 
sufficiently  meet  the  conditions  and  safeguards  required  by  Article  23(2)  of  the 

61   Article 9 GDPR. 
62   Article 89(2) GDPR. 
63   See Article 9(2)(i) GDPR and recital 46. 
64   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/recommendation_on_apps_for_contact_tracing_4.pdf . 
65  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020XC0417  (08)  &  from  = 

EN. 

66 

https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2020/statement-processing-personal-data-context-covid-19-

outbreak_en. 

67   https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/general-guidance/gdpr-guidelines-recommendations-best-

practices_en. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
GDPR68. Several Member States leave no room for the proportionality test or extend 
the  restrictions  even  beyond  the  scope  of  Article  23(1)  of  the  GDPR.  For  example, 
some national laws deny the right of access for reasons of disproportionate effort on 
the  side  of  controller,  for  personal  data  which  are  stored  on  the  basis  of  a  retention 
obligation  or  related  to  the  performance  of  public  tasks  without  limiting  such 
restriction to objectives of general public interest. 

  Additional requirements for companies 

Although the requirement of a mandatory data protection officer is based on the risk-
based approach69, one Member State70 extended it to a quantitative criteria, obliging 
companies in which 20 employees or more are permanently involved in the automated 
processing of personal data to designate a data protection officer, independently of the 
risks connected with the processing activities71. This has led to additional burdens. 

4  EMPOWERING INDIVIDUALS TO CONTROL THEIR DATA 

The GDPR makes fundamental rights effective, in particular the right to the protection 
of  personal  data,  but  also  the  other  fundamental  rights  recognised  by  the  Charter, 
including  the  respect  for  private  and  family  life,  freedom  of  expression  and 
information,  non-discrimination,  freedom  of  thought,  conscience  and  religion, 
freedom to conduct a business and the right to an effective remedy. These rights must 
be balanced against each other in accordance with the principle of proportionality72. 

The GDPR provides individuals with enforceable rights, such as the right of access, 
rectification,  erasure,  objection,  portability  and  enhanced  transparency.  It  also  gives 
individuals the right to lodge a complaint with a data protection authority, including 
through representative actions, and to judicial redress. 

Individuals are increasingly aware of their rights, as shown in the results of the July 
2019  Eurobarometer73  and  the  survey  carried  out  by  the  Fundamental  Rights 
Agency74. 

According to the Fundamental Rights Survey carried out by the Fundamental Rights 
Agency: 

  69% of the population aged 16+ in the EU have heard about the GDPR; 

  71%  of  respondents  in  the  EU  have  heard  about  their  national  data  protection 
authority; this figure ranges from 90% in the Czech Republic to 44% in Belgium; 

68   For instance because they simply repeat the wording of Article 23(1) GDPR. 
69   Article 37(1) GDPR. 
70   Germany. 
71   Making use of the specification clause in Article 37(4) GDPR. 
72   Cf. recital 4 of the GDPR. 
73   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_2956 
74   European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2020): Fundamental Rights Survey 2019. 
technology:  https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/fundamental-rights-

Data  protection  and 
survey-data-protection 

19 

 
 
                                                 
  60% of respondents in the EU are aware of a law that allows them to access their 
personal data as held by public administration; however, this percentage decreases 
to 51% for private companies; 

  more than one in five respondents (23%) in the EU do not want to share personal 
data  (such  as  one’s  address,  citizenship  or  date  of  birth)  with  public 
administration, and 41% do not want to share these data with private companies. 

Individuals are increasingly using their right to lodge complaints with data protection 
authorities,  either  individually  or  by  representative  actions75.  Only  a  few  Member 
States  have  allowed  non-governmental  organisations  to  launch  actions  without  a 
mandate, in line with the possibility provided by the GDPR. The proposed Directive 
on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers76 is 
expected, once adopted, to strengthen the framework for representative actions also in 
the field of data protection.  

Complaints 

The  total  number  of  complaints  between  May  2018  and  end  of  November  2019  as 
reported by the Board is around 275 00077. However, this figure should be considered 
with  much  caution  given  that  the  definition  of  a  complaint  is  not  identical  among 
authorities.  The  absolute  number  of  complaints  received  by  data  protection 
authorities78  is  very  different  between  Member  States.  The  highest  numbers  of 
complaints were registered in Germany (67 000), the Netherlands (37 000), Spain and 
France (18 000 each), Italy (14 000), Poland and Ireland (12 000 each). Two-thirds of 
authorities reported the number of complaints as ranging between 8 000 and 600. The 
lowest  numbers  of  complaints  were  registered  in  Estonia  and  Belgium  (around  500 
each), Malta and Iceland (fewer than 200 each). 

The number of complaints is not necessarily correlated to the size of the population or 
GDP, with for instance close to twice as many complaints in Germany compared to 
the Netherlands, and four times as many compared to Spain and France. 

Feedback  from  the  Multi-stakeholder  Group  shows  that  organisations  have  put  in 
place a variety of measures to facilitate the exercise of data subjects’ rights, including 
implementing processes that ensure individual review of requests and a reply from the 
controller, the use of several  channels (mail, dedicated email address, website, etc.), 
updated internal procedures and policies on the timely internal handling of requests, 
and  staff  training.  Some  companies  have  put  in  place  digital  portals  accessible 
through the company’s website (or the company’s intranet for employees) to facilitate 
the exercise of rights by data subjects. 

However, further progress is needed on the following points: 

  Not  all  data  controllers  comply  with  their  obligation  to  facilitate  the  exercise  of 
data  subjects’  rights79.  They  need  to  ensure  that  data  subjects  have  an  effective 
point  of  contact  to  whom  they  can  explain  their  problems.  This  can  be  the  data 

75   Article 80 GDPR. 
76   COM/2018/0184 final - 2018/089 (COD) 
77   Both under Articles 77 and 80 GDPR. 
78   See contribution from the Board, pages 31-32. 
79   Article 12(2) GDPR.  

20 

 
 
                                                 
protection  officer,  whose  contact  details  have  to  be  provided  pro-actively  to  the 
data subject80. The contact modalities must not be limited to e-mails, but must also 
enable the data subject to address the controller through other means. 

 

Individuals still face difficulties when requesting access to their data, for instance 
from platforms, data brokers and adtech companies. 

  The right to data portability is not used to its full potential. The European Strategy 
for Data (hereafter Data Strategy)81, adopted by the Commission on 19 February 
2020,  emphasised  the  need  to  facilitate  all  possible  uses  of  this  right  (e.g.  by 
mandating technical interfaces and machine-readably formats allowing portability 
of data in (near-to) real-time). Operators note that there are sometimes difficulties 
in  providing  the  data  in  a  structured,  commonly  used  machine-readable  format 
(due  to  the  lack  of  standard).  Only  organisations  in  particular  sectors,  such  as 
banking, 
report  having 
implemented  the  necessary  interfaces82.  New  technological  tools  have  been 
developed to facilitate the exercise by individuals of their rights under the GDPR, 
not limited to data portability (e.g. personal data spaces and personal information 
management services). 

telecommunications,  water  and  heating  meters, 

  Rights  of  children:  Several  members  of  the  Multi-stakeholder  Group  stress  the 
need  to  provide  information  to  children  and  the  fact  that  many  organisations 
ignore  that  children  may  be  concerned  by  their  data  processing.  The  Council 
stressed that particular attention could be paid to the protection of children when 
drafting  codes  of  conduct.  The  protection  of  children  is  also  a  focus  of  data 
protection authorities83. 

  Right to information: some companies have a very legalistic approach, taking data 
protection  notices  as  a  legal  exercise,  with  information  being  quite  complex, 
difficult  to  understand  or  incomplete,  whereas  the  GDPR  requires  that  any 
information  should  be  concise  and  use  clear  and  plain  language84.  It  seems  that 
some  companies  do  not  follow  the  Board’s  recommendations,  for  example  as 
regards listing the names of the entities with whom they share data. 

  Several  Member  States  extensively  restricted  data  subjects’  rights  through 
national law, and some even beyond the margins of Article 23 of the GDPR. 

  The exercise of the rights of individuals is sometimes hampered by the practices 
of a few major digital players that make it difficult for individuals to choose the 
settings  that  most  protect  their  privacy  (in  violation  of  the  requirement  of  data 
protection by design and default85)86. 

80   Article 13(1)(b) and Article 14 (1)(b) GDPR. 
81   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-european-strategy-data-19feb2020_en.pdf 
82   See report from the Multi-stakeholder Group. 
83   See the results of a public consultation on children’s data protection rights carried out by the Irish 
https://www.dataprotection.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/2019-
data 
09/Whose%20Rights%20Are%20They%20Anyway_Trends%20and%20Hightlights%20from%20S
tream%201.pdf. The French data protection authority also launched a public consultation in April 
2020: 
https://www.cnil.fr/fr/la-cnil-lance-une-consultation-publique-sur-les-droits-des-mineurs-
dans-lenvironnement-numerique 

protection 

authority: 

84   Article 12(1) GDPR. 
85   Article 25 GDPR. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
The Board’s guidelines on data subjects’ rights are eagerly awaited by stakeholders. 

5  OPPORTUNITIES  AND  CHALLENGES  FOR  ORGANISATIONS,  IN  PARTICULAR 

SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE ENTERPRISES 

Opportunities for organisations  

The GDPR fosters competition and innovation. Together with the Free Flow of Non-
Personal Data Regulation87, it ensures the free flow of data within the EU and creates 
a  level  playing  field  with  companies  not  established  in  the  EU.  By  creating  a 
harmonised framework for the protection of personal data, the GDPR ensures that all 
actors in the internal market are bound by the same rules and benefit from the same 
opportunities,  regardless  of  whether  they  are  established  and  where  the  processing 
takes  place.  The  technological  neutrality  of  the  GDPR  provides  the  data  protection 
framework for new technological developments. The principles of data protection by 
design and by default incentivises innovative solutions, which include data protection 
considerations  from  the  outset  and  may  reduce  the  cost  of  compliance  with  data 
protection rules.  

In  addition,  privacy  becomes  an  important  competitive  parameter  that  individuals 
increasingly  take  into  consideration  when  choosing  their  services.  Those  who  are 
more informed and sensitive to  data protection considerations look for products  and 
services that ensure effective protection of personal data. The implementation of the 
right to data portability has the potential to lower the barriers to entry for businesses 
offering  innovative,  data-protection-friendly  services.  The  effects  of  a  potentially 
broader  use  of  this  right  on  the  market  in  different  sectors  should  be  monitored. 
Compliance with the data protection rules and their transparent application will create 
trust  on  the  use  of  the  people’s  personal  data  and  thus  new  opportunities  for 
businesses. 

Like  all  regulation,  data  protection  rules  have  inherent  compliance  costs  for 
companies. However, these costs are outweighed by the opportunities and advantages 
of  strengthened  trust  in  digital  innovation  and  the  societal  benefits  resulting  from 
respecting a fundamental right. By ensuring a level playing field and equipping data 
protection authorities with what they need to enforce the rules effectively, the GDPR 
prevents  non-compliant  companies  from  free-riding  on  the  trust  built  by  those  who 
follow the rules. 

Specific challenges for Small and Medium size Enterprises (SMEs) 

86   See report by the Norwegian Consumer Council, Deceived by Design, which highlighted the “dark 
patterns”,  default  settings  and  other  features  and  techniques  used  by  companies  to  nudge  users 
towards intrusive options: 
https://www.forbrukerradet.no/undersokelse/no-undersokelsekategori/deceived-by-design/ 
See also the research published in December 2019 by the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue and the 
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung  Brussels  European  Union  analysing  the  practices  of  three  major  global 
platforms: 
https://eu.boell.org/en/2019/12/11/privacy-eu-and-us-consumer-experiences-across-three-global-
platforms 

87   Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 
on  a  framework  for  the  free  flow  of  non-personal  data  in  the  European  Union  -  OJ  L  303, 
28.11.2018, p. 59–68 

22 

 
 
                                                                                                                                            
There is  a  general  perception by stakeholders,  but  also  by  the European  Parliament, 
the  Council  and  data  protection  authorities  that  applying  the  GDPR  is  especially 
challenging for micro, small and medium size enterprises, and to small voluntary and 
charitable organisations. 

According  to  the  risk-based  approach,  it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  provide 
derogations  based  on  the  size  of  the  operators,  as  their  size  is  not  in  itself  an 
indication of the risks the processing of personal data that it undertakes can create for 
individuals.  The  risk-based  approach  pairs  flexibility  with  effective  protection.  It 
takes into account the needs of SMEs that do not have processing of data as their core 
business,  and  calibrates  their  obligations  in  particular  based  on  the  likelihood  and 
severity of the risks related to the specific processing they carry out.88  

Small and low-risk processing should not be treated in the same way as high risk and 
frequent  processing  –  independently  of  the  size  of  the  company  that  undertakes  it. 
Therefore, as the Board concluded, “in any case, the risk-based approach promoted by 
the legislator in the text should be maintained, as risks for data subjects do not depend 
on the size of controllers”89. The data protection authorities should fully take on board 
this  principle  when  enforcing  the  GDPR,  preferably  within  a  common  European 
approach in order not to create barriers to the Single Market. 

The data protection authorities developed several tools and stressed their intention to 
further improve them. Some authorities have launched awareness campaigns and will 
even hold free “GDPR classes” for SMEs.  

Examples of guidance and tools provided by data protection authorities specifically to 
SMEs 

  publication of information addressed to SMEs; 

  seminars  for  data  protection  officers  and  events  for  SMEs  that  do  not  need  to 

designate a data protection officer; 

 

interactive guides to assist SMEs;  

  hotlines for consultations; 

 

templates for processing contracts and records on processing activities. 

A description of activities carried out by data protection authorities is presented in the 
Board’s contribution90. 

Several  of  the  actions  that  specifically  support  SMEs  received  EU  funding.  The 
Commission provided financial support through  three waves of  grants,  for a total  of 
EUR  5  million,  with  the  two  most  recent  ones  specifically  aimed  at  supporting 
national  data  protection  authorities  in  their  efforts  to  reach  out  to  individuals  and 
SMEs.  As  a  result,  in  2018,  EUR  2  million  were  allocated  to  nine  data  protection 
authorities  for  activities  in  2018-2019  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Hungary, 

88   Article 24(1) GDPR. 
89   See contribution from the Board, p. 35. 
90   See contribution from the Board, pages 35-45. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
Lithuania,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands,  Slovenia,  and  Iceland)91,  and  in  2019  EUR  1 
million  was  allocated  to  four  data  protection  authorities  for  activities  in  2020 
(Belgium, Malta, Slovenia and Croatia in partnership with  Ireland)92. An additional 
EUR 1 million will be allocated in 2020. 

Despite these initiatives, SMEs and start-ups often report that they struggle with the 
implementation  of  the  accountability  principle  set  forth  under  the  GDPR93.  They 
notably report that they do not always get enough guidance and practical advice from 
the  national  data  protection  authorities,  or  that  the  time  it takes  to  get  guidance  and 
advice  is  too  long.  There  have  also  been  cases  where  authorities  were  reluctant  to 
engage  in  legal  issues.  When  confronted  with  such  situations,  SMEs  often  turn  to 
external  advisors  and  lawyers  to  deal  with  the  implementation  of  the  accountability 
principle  and  the  risk-based  approach  (including  transparency  requirements,  records 
of  processing  and  data  breach  notifications).  This  may  also  create  further  costs  for 
them. 

One  specific  issue  is  the  recording  of  processing  activities,  which  is  considered  by 
SMEs and small associations as a cumbersome administrative burden. The exemption 
from  that  obligation  in  Article  30(5)  GDPR  is  indeed  very  narrow.  However,  the 
related efforts for complying with that obligation should not be over-estimated. Where 
the  core  business  of  SMEs  does  not  involve  the  processing  of  personal  data,  such 
records may be simple and not burdensome. The same applies for voluntary and other 
associations. Such simplified records would be facilitated by records templates, as is 
already  the  practice  of  some  data  protection  authorities.  In  any  case,  everyone  who 
processes personal data should have an overview on their data processing as a basic 
requirement of the accountability principle. 

The  development  of  practical  tools  at  EU  level  by  the  Board,  such  as  harmonised 
forms  for  data  breaches  and  simplified  records  of  processing  activities,  may  help 
SMEs and small associations94 whose main activities do not focus on the processing 
of personal data to meet their obligations.  

Various industry  associations have made  efforts  to  raise  awareness  and inform  their 
members,  for  instance  through  conferences  and  seminars,  providing  businesses  with 
information  on  available  guidance,  or  developing  a  privacy  assistance  service  for 
members.  They  also  report  an  increasing  number  of  seminars,  meetings  and  events 
organised by think tanks and SME associations on matters related to the GDPR. 

In  order  to  enhance  the  free  movement  of  all  data  within  the  EU  and  to  establish  a 
coherent  application  of  the  GDPR  and  the  Free  Flow  of  Non-Personal  Data 
Regulation,  the Commission  also  issued a practical  guidance on rules  governing the 

91   https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/rec-

rdat-trai- ag-2017. 

92   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/eu-data-protection-rules/eu-funding-

supporting-implementation-gdpr_en 

93   See report from the Multi-stakeholder Group. 
94   See contribution from the Council. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
processing of mixed datasets, composed of both personal and non-personal data, and 
targeting especially SMEs95. 

Toolbox for businesses 

The  GDPR  provides  for  tools  that  help  demonstrate  compliance,  such  as  codes  of 
conduct, certification mechanisms, and standard contractual clauses. 

  Codes of conduct 
The Board has issued guidelines96 to support and facilitate “code owners” in drafting, 
amending  or  extending  codes,  and  to  provide  practical  guidance  and  interpretative 
assistance. These guidelines also clarify the procedures for the submission, approval 
and  publication  of  codes  at  both  national  and  EU  level  by  setting  out  the  minimum 
criteria required. 

Stakeholders consider codes of conduct as very useful tools. Although many codes are 
implemented at national level, a number of EU wide codes of conduct are currently in 
preparation  (for  instance  on  mobile  health  apps,  health  research  in  genomics,  cloud 
computing,  direct  marketing,  insurance,  processing  by  prevention  and  counselling 
services  for  children)97. Operators believe that  EU-wide codes  of  conduct  should be 
promoted  more  prominently  as  they  foster  the  consistent  application  of  the  GDPR 
across all Member States. 

However, codes of conduct also require time and investment from operators both for 
their  development  and  for  the  setting  up  of  the  required  independent  monitoring 
bodies. Representatives from SMEs stress the importance and usefulness of codes of 
conduct tailored to their situation and not entailing disproportionate costs. 

Consequently, business associations in a number of sectors implemented other kinds 
of self-regulatory tools such as codes of good practice or guidance. While such tools 
may  provide  useful  information,  they  do  not  have  the  approval  of  data  protection 
authorities and cannot serve as a tool to help demonstrate compliance with the GDPR. 

The  Council  stresses  that  codes  of  conduct  must  pay  particular  attention  to  the 
processing of children’s data and health data. The Commission is supporting code(s) 
of conducts  that  would  harmonise the  approach  in  health and  research and facilitate 
the  cross-border  processing  of  personal  data98.  The  Board  is  in  the  process  of 
approving draft accreditation requirements for codes of conduct monitoring bodies put 
forward by a number of data protection authorities99. Once transnational or EU codes 
of conduct are ready to be submitted to data protection authorities for approval, they 
will undergo consultation of the Board. Having transnational codes of conduct rapidly 
in  place  is  especially  important  for  areas  involving  the  processing  of  significant 
amounts of data (e.g. cloud computing) or sensitive data (e.g. health/research). 

95   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  - Guidance on 
the  Regulation  on  a  framework  for  the  free  flow  of  non-personal  data  in  the  European  Union, 
COM/2019/250 final. 

96 

https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/wytyczne/guidelines-12019-codes-conduct-

and-monitoring-bodies-under_en. 

97   See report from the Multi-stakeholder Group. 
98   See actions announced in the European Strategy for Data, page 30. 
99   Under  Article  41(3)  GDPR.  See  EDPB  opinions  at:  https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-

tools/consistency-findings/opinions_en 

25 

 
 
                                                 
  Certification 

Certification  can  be  a  useful  instrument  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  specific 
requirements of the GDPR. It can increase legal certainty for businesses and promote 
the GDPR globally.  
As pointed out in the study on certification published in April 2019100, the objective 
should  be  to  facilitate  the  uptake  of  relevant  schemes.  The  development  of 
certification  schemes  in  the  EU  will  be  supported  by  the  guidelines  issued  by  the 
Board on certification criteria 101 and on the accreditation of certification bodies102. 

Security  and  data  protection  by  design  are  key  elements  to  be  considered  in 
certification  schemes  under  the  GDPR  and  would  benefit  from  a  common  and 
ambitious approach throughout the EU. The Commission will continue to support the 
current contacts between the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), the 
data protection authorities and the Board.  

As  regards  cybersecurity,  following  the  adoption  of  the  Cybersecurity  Act  the 
Commission  requested  that  ENISA  prepare  two  certification  schemes  including  one 
scheme  for  cloud  services103.  Further  schemes  addressing  the  cybersecurity  of 
services and products for consumers are under consideration. While these certification 
schemes  established  under  the  Cybersecurity  Act,  do  not  explicitly  address  data 
protection  and  privacy,  they  contribute  to  increasing  consumers’  trust  in  digital 
services  and  products.  Such  schemes  may  provide  evidence  of  adherence  to  the 
principles of security by design as well as the implementation of appropriate technical 
and organisational measures related to the security of processing of personal data. 

  Standard contractual clauses 

The Commission is working on standard contractual clauses between controllers and 
processors104, also in light of the modernisation of the standard contractual clauses for 
international  transfers  (see  Section  7.2).  A  Union  act,  adopted  by  the  Commission, 
will  have  EU-wide  binding  effect  which  will  ensure  full  harmonisation  and  legal 
certainty. 

6  THE APPLICATION OF THE GDPR TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES 

A technology neutral framework open to new technologies 
The  GDPR  is  technology-neutral,  trust-enabling,  and  based  on  principles105.  These 
principles,  including  lawful  and  transparent  processing,  purpose  limitation  and  data 

100 https://ec.europa.eu/info/study-data-protection-certification-mechanisms_en 
101  https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/smjernice/guidelines-12018-certification-and-

identifying-certification_en.  

102  https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/retningslinjer/guidelines-42018-accreditation-
certification-bodies_en.  Several  supervisory  authorities  have  already  submitted  their  accreditation 
requirements to the EDBP, both for code of conduct monitoring bodies and for certification bodies. 
See the overview at: https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/consistency-findings/opinions_en. 
103 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/towards-more-secure-and-trusted-cloud-europe 
104  Article 28(7) GDPR. 
105  As  recalled  by  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Board  in  their  contributions  to  the 

evaluation. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
minimisation, provide for a solid basis for the protection of personal data, irrespective 
of the processing operations and techniques applied.  

Members of the Multi-stakeholder Group report that overall the GDPR has a positive 
impact  on  the  development  of  new  technologies  and  provides  a  good  basis  for 
innovation.  The  GDPR  is  seen  as  an  essential  and  flexible  tool  for  ensuring  the 
development  of  new  technologies  in  accordance  with  fundamental  rights.  The 
implementation  of  its  core  principles  is  particularly  crucial  for  data  intensive 
processing. The GDPR’s risk based and technology neutral approach provides a level 
of  data  protection  that  is  adequate  to  address  the  risk  of  processing,  including  by 
emerging technologies. 

further  compatible  processing,  data  minimisation, 

In particular, stakeholders mention  that  the GDPR’s principles of purpose limitation 
and 
limitation, 
transparency,  accountability  and  the  conditions  under  which  automated  decision 
making  processes106  can  be  legally  deployed  to  a  large  extent  address  the  concerns 
related to the use of artificial intelligence. 

storage 

The  future-proof  and  risk  based  approach  of  the  GDPR  will  also  be  applied  in  the 
possible future framework for artificial intelligence and when implementing the Data 
Strategy.  The  Data  strategy  aims  at  fostering  data  availability  and  at  the  creation  of 
common  European  data  spaces  supported  by  federated  cloud  infrastructure  services. 
As regards personal data, the GDPR provides the main legal framework, within which 
effective  solutions  can  be  devised  on  a  case-by-case  basis  depending  on  the  nature 
and content of each data space. 

The GDPR has increased awareness about the protection of personal data both within 
and outside the EU and has prompted companies to adapt their practices to take into 
innovating.  However,  civil  society 
account  data  protection  principles  when 
organisations  note  that,  although  the  GDPR’s  impact  on  the  development  of  new 
technologies  appears  positive,  the  practices  of  major  digital  players  have  not  yet 
fundamentally  changed  towards  more  privacy-friendly  processing.  Strong  and 
effective  enforcement  of  the  GDPR  vis-à-vis  large  digital  platforms  and  integrated 
companies,  including  in  areas  such  as  online  advertising  and  micro-targeting,  is  an 
essential element for protecting individuals. 

The Commission is analysing the broader issues related to the market behaviours of 
large digital players in the context of the Digital Services Act package107. As regards 
research in the field of social media, the Commission recalls that the GDPR cannot be 
used as an excuse by social media platforms to limit researchers’ and fact-checkers’ 
access to non-personal data such as statistics on which targeted ads have been sent to 
which  categories  of  people,  the  criteria  for  designing  this  targeting,  information  on 
fake accounts, etc. 

The  GDPR’s  technologically-neutral  and  future-proof  approach  was  put  to  the  test 
during the COVID-19 pandemic and has proven to be successful. Its principles based 
rules  supported  the  development  of  tools  to  combat  and  monitor  the  spread  of  the 
virus.  

106  However,  stakeholders  observe  that  not  all  automated  decision-making  processes  in  an  artificial 

intelligence context fall under Article 22 GDPR. 

107  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_962  

27 

 
 
                                                 
Challenges to be addressed 

The development and application of new technologies do not put these principles into 
question. The challenges lie in clarifying how to apply the proven principles to the use 
of specific technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, Internet of Things, 
facial recognition or quantum computing.  

In  this  context,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  stressed  the  need  for  a 
continuous monitoring to clarify how the GDPR applies to new technologies and big 
tech  companies.  In  addition,  stakeholders  warn  that  the  assessment  of  whether  the 
GDPR remains fit for purpose also requires a constant monitoring.  

Industry  stakeholders  stress  that  innovation  requires  that  the  GDPR  is  applied  in  a 
principle-based way, in line with its design, rather than in a rigid and formal manner. 
They are of the view that Board’s guidelines on how to apply the GDPR principles, 
concepts  and  rules  to  new  technologies  such  as  artificial  intelligence,  blockchain  or 
Internet  of  Things,  taking  into  account  the  risk-based  approach,  would  help  provide 
clarifications  and  more  legal  certainty.  Such  soft  law  tools  are  well  suited  to 
accompany  the  GDPR’s  application  to  the  new  technologies  since  they  provide  for 
more  legal  certainty  and  can  be  reviewed  in  line  with  technological  developments. 
Some stakeholders also suggest that sectoral guidance on how to apply the GDPR to 
new technologies could be helpful. 

The Board stated that it will continue to consider the impact of emerging technologies 
on the protection of personal data. 

Stakeholders  also  underline  the  importance  for  regulators  to  get  a  thorough 
understanding  of  how  technology  is  being  used  and  to  engage  in  a  dialogue  with 
industry  on  the  development  of  emerging  technologies.  They  consider  that  a 
‘regulatory sandbox’ approach – as a means to obtain guidance on the application of 
the rules – could be an interesting option to test new technologies and help businesses 
apply the data protection by design and by default principle in new technologies. 

In  terms  of  further  policy  action,  stakeholders  recommend  that  any  future  policy 
proposals on artificial intelligence should build on the existing legal frameworks and 
be  aligned  with  the  GDPR.  Potential  specific  issues  should  be  carefully  assessed, 
based on relevant evidence, before new prescriptive rules are proposed.  

The  Commission  White  Paper  on  Artificial  Intelligence  puts  forward  a  number  of 
policy  options  on  which  stakeholders’  views  were  sought  until  14  June  2020.  As 
regards  facial  recognition,  a  technology  that  may  significantly  impact  individuals’ 
rights, the White Paper recalled the current legislative framework and opened a public 
debate on the specific circumstances, if any, which might justify the use of artificial 
intelligence for facial recognition and other remote biometric identification purposes 
in public places, and on common safeguards. 

7 

INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS AND GLOBAL COOPERATION 

7.1  Privacy: a global issue 

The  demand  for  the  protection  of  personal  data  knows  no  borders,  as  individuals 
around the world increasingly cherish and value the privacy and security of their data.  

28 

 
 
At  the  same  time,  the  importance  of  data  flows  for  individuals,  governments, 
companies  and,  more  generally,  society  at  large  is  an  inescapable  fact  in  our 
interconnected world.  They  constitute an integral  part of trade, cooperation between 
public  authorities  and  social  interactions.  In  that  respect,  the  current  COVID-19 
pandemic also highlights how critical the transfer and exchange of personal data are 
for  many  essential  activities,  including  ensuring  the  continuity  of  government  and 
business operations – by enabling teleworking and other solutions that heavily rely on 
information  and  communication  technologies  –  developing  cooperation  in  scientific 
research  on  diagnostics,  treatments  and  vaccines,  and  fighting  new  forms  of 
cybercrime  such  as  online  fraud  schemes  offering  counterfeit  medicines  claiming  to 
prevent or cure COVID-19. 

Against  this  background,  and  more  than  ever  before,  protecting  privacy  and 
facilitating  data  flows  have  to  go  hand  in  hand.  The  EU,  with  its  data  protection 
regime combining openness to international transfers with a high level of protection 
for individuals, is very well placed to promote safe and trusted data flows. The GDPR 
has already emerged as a reference point at international level and acted as a catalyst 
for many countries around the world to consider introducing modern privacy rules.  

This  is  a  truly  global  trend  running,  to  mention  just  a  few  examples,  from  Chile  to 
South Korea, from Brazil to Japan, from Kenya to India, from Tunisia to Indonesia, 
and from California to Taiwan. These developments are remarkable not only from a 
quantitative  but  also  from  a  qualitative  point  of  view:  many  of  the  privacy  laws 
recently  adopted,  or  in  the  process  of  being  adopted,  are  based  on  a  core  set  of 
common safeguards, rights and enforcement mechanisms that are shared by the EU. 
In  a  world  that  is  too  often  characterised  by  different,  if  not  divergent,  regulatory 
approaches, this trend towards global convergence is a very positive development that 
brings new opportunities for increasing the protection of individuals in Europe while, 
at  the  same  time,  facilitating  data  flows  and  lowering  transaction  costs  for  business 
operators. 

To  seize  these  opportunities  and  implement  the  strategy  set  out  in  its  2017 
Communication  on  “Exchanging  and  Protecting  Personal  Data  in  a  Globalised 
World”108, the Commission has significantly stepped up its work on the international 
dimension of privacy making full use of the available transfer ‘toolbox’, as explained 
below. This included actively engaging with key partners with a view to reaching an 
“adequacy finding” and yielded important results, such as the creation of the world’s 
largest area of free and safe data flows between the EU and Japan.  

Besides its adequacy work, the Commission has worked closely with data protection 
authorities  within  the  Board,  as  well  as  with  other  stakeholders,  to  harness  the  full 
potential  of  the  GDPR’s  flexible  rules  for  international  transfers.  This  concerns  the 
modernisation of instruments such as standard contractual clauses, the development of 
certification  schemes,  codes  of  conduct  or  administrative  arrangements  for  data 
exchanges  between  public  authorities,  as  well  as  the  clarification  of  key  concepts 

108  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  ‘Exchanging 

and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World’, 10.1.2017 (COM(2017) 7 final). 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
relating to, for example, the territorial scope of EU data protection rules or the use of 
so-called “derogations” to transfer personal data.  

Finally, the Commission intensified its dialogue in a number of bilateral, regional and 
multilateral fora to foster a global culture of respect for privacy and develop elements 
of  convergence  between  different  privacy  systems.  In  its  efforts,  the  Commission 
could  count  on  the  active  support  of  the  European  External  Action  Service  and  the 
network  of  EU  delegations  in  third  countries  and  missions  to  international 
organisations.  This  also  ensured  coherence  and  greater  complementarity  between 
different  aspects  of  the  external  dimension  of  EU  policies  –  from  trade  to  the  new 
Africa-EU Partnership. 

7.2  The GDPR transfer toolbox  

As more and more private and public operators rely on international data flows as part 
of their routine operations, there is an increasing need for flexible instruments that can 
be  adapted  to  different  sectors,  business  models  and  transfer  situations.  Reflecting 
these  needs,  the  GDPR  offers  a  modernised  toolbox  that  facilitates  the  transfer  of 
personal  data  from  the  EU  to  a  third  country  or  international  organisation,  while 
ensuring  that  the  data  continues  to  benefit  from  a  high  level  of  protection.  This 
continuity  of  protection  is  important,  given  that  in  today’s  world  data  moves  easily 
across borders  and the protections  guaranteed by the GDPR would be incomplete if 
they were limited to processing inside the EU.  

With Chapter V of the GDPR, the legislator confirmed the architecture of the transfer 
rules that already existed under Directive 95/46: data transfers may take place where 
the  Commission  has  made  an  adequacy  finding  with  respect  to  a  third  country  or 
international organisation or, in the absence thereof, where the controller or processor 
in the EU (“data exporter”) has provided appropriate safeguards, for instance through 
a  contract  with  the  recipient  (“data  importer”).  In  addition,  statutory  grounds  for 
transfers (so-called derogations), remain available for specific situations for which the 
legislator has decided that the balance of interests allows a data transfer under certain 
conditions.  At  the  same  time,  the  reform  has  clarified  and  simplified  the  existing 
rules,  for  instance  by  stipulating  in  detail  the  conditions  for  an  adequacy  finding  or 
binding  corporate  rules,  by  limiting  authorisation  requirements  to  very  few,  specific 
cases  and  completely  abolishing  notification  requirements.  Moreover,  new  transfer 
tools  like  codes  of  conduct  or  certification  schemes  have  been  introduced  and  the 
possibilities  for  using  existing  instruments  (e.g.  standard  contractual  clauses)  have 
been expanded.  

Today’s  digital  economy  allows  foreign  operators  to  (remotely  but)  directly 
participate in the EU internal market and to compete for European customers and their 
personal data. Where they specifically target Europeans through the offering of goods 
or services, or monitoring of their behaviour, they should comply with EU law in the 
same way as EU operators. This is reflected in Article 3 of the GDPR, which extends 
the direct applicability of EU data protection rules to certain processing operations of 
controllers and processors outside the EU. This guarantees the necessary safeguards, 
and moreover a level playing field for all companies operating in the EU market.  

Its broad reach is one of the reasons why the effects of the GDPR have also been felt 
in other parts of the world. The detailed guidance issued by the Board on the GDPR 
territorial  scope,  following  a  comprehensive  public  consultation,  is  therefore 
30 

 
 
important to help foreign operators determine whether and which processing activities 
are directly subject to its safeguards, including by providing concrete examples 109.  

The extension of the scope of application of EU data protection law, however, in and 
of itself is not sufficient to guarantee its respect in practice. As also highlighted by the 
Council110,  it  is  crucial  to  ensure  compliance  by,  and  effective  enforcement  against, 
foreign operators. The appointment of a representative in the EU (Article 27(1), (2) of 
the  GDPR),  who  can  be  addressed  by  individuals  and  supervisory  authorities  in 
addition to or instead of the responsible company acting from abroad111 should play a 
key  role  in  this  regard.  This  approach,  which  is  also  increasingly  taken  in  other 
contexts112, should be pursued more vigorously to send a clear message that the lack 
of an establishment in the EU does not relieve foreign operators of their responsibility 
under  the  GDPR.  Where  these  operators  fail  to  meet  their  obligation  to  appoint  a 
representative113,  supervisory  authorities  should  make  use  of  the  full  enforcement 
toolbox in Article 58 of the GDPR (e.g. public warnings, temporary or definitive bans 
on processing in the EU, enforcement against joint controllers established in the EU). 

Finally, it is very important that the Board finalises its work on further clarifying the 
relationship between Article 3 on the direct application of the GDPR and the rules on 
international transfers in Chapter V114.  

Adequacy decisions  

The input received from stakeholders confirms that adequacy decisions continue to be 
an essential tool for EU operators to safely transfer personal data to third countries115. 
Such  decisions  provide  the  most  comprehensive,  straightforward  and  cost-effective 
solution  for  data  transfers  as  these  are  assimilated  to  intra-EU  transmissions,  thus 
ensuring the safe and free flow of personal data without further conditions or need for 
authorisation.  Adequacy  decisions  therefore  open  up  commercial  channels  for  EU 
operators  and  facilitate  cooperation  between  public  authorities,  while  providing 

109  EDPB, Guidelines 2/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR, 12.11.2019. The Guidelines address 
several  of  the  points  raised  during  the  public  consultation,  for  instance  the  interpretation  of  the 
targeting and monitoring criteria.  

110  See Council position and findings, paras 34, 35 and 38. 
111  See  Article  27(4)  and  Recital  80  GDPR  (“The  designated  representative  should  be  subject  to 

enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the controller or processor”). 

112  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  harmonised 
rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal 
proceedings  (COM/2018/226  final),  Article  3;  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  preventing  the  dissemination  of  terrorist  content  online 
(COM(2018) 640 final), Article 16(2), (3).  

113  According  to  one  submission  to  the  public  consultation,  one  of  the  main  points  to  address  “is 
effective enforcement and real consequences for those who chose to ignore this requirement […] It 
should be borne in mind in particular that this also places businesses established in the Union at a 
competitive  disadvantage  to  those  noncompliant  businesses  established  outside  the  Union  trading 
into the Union.” See EU Business Partners, submission of 29 April 2020. 

114  Several  submissions  to  the  public  consultation  have  raised  this  point,  for  instance  as  regards  the 

transmission of personal data to recipients outside the EU but covered by the GDPR.  

115  Council  position  and  findings,  paragraph  17;  Contribution  from  the  Board,  pp.  5-6.  Several 
submissions to the public consultation, including from a number of business associations (like the 
French  Association  of  Large  Companies,  Digital  Europe,  the  Global  Data  Alliance/BSA,  the 
Computer & Communication Industry Association (CCIA) or the US Chamber of Commerce) have 
called for stepping-up the work on adequacy findings, especially with important trading partners. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
privileged  access  to  the  EU  single  market.  Building  on  the  practice  under  the  1995 
Directive, the GDPR explicitly allows for an adequacy determination to be made with 
respect  to  a  particular  territory  of  a  third  country  or  to  a  specific  sector  or  industry 
within a third country (so-called ‘partial’ adequacy). 

The  GDPR  builds  upon  the  experience  of  the  past  years  and  the  clarifications 
provided by the Court of Justice by setting out a detailed catalogue of elements that 
the  Commission  must  take  into  account  in  its  assessment.  The  adequacy  standard 
requires  a  level  of  protection  that  is  comparable  (or  ‘essentially  equivalent’)  to  that 
ensured  within  the  EU116.  This  involves  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  third 
country’s  system  as  a  whole,  including  the  substance  of  privacy  protections,  their 
effective implementation and enforcement, as well as the rules on access to personal 
data  by  public  authorities,  in  particular  for  law  enforcement  and  national  security 
purposes117.  

This is also reflected in the guidance adopted by the former Article 29 Working Party 
(and endorsed by the Board), in particular the so-called ‘adequacy referential’, which 
further  clarifies  the  elements  that  the  Commission  must  take  into  account  when 
carrying  out  an  adequacy  assessment,  including  by  providing  an  overview  of 
‘essential  guarantees’  for  access  to  personal  data  by  public  authorities118.  The  latter 
builds in  particular on the case law of the European Court of  Human Rights.  While 
the  standard  of  ‘essential  equivalence’  does  not  involve  a  point-to-point  replication 
(‘photocopy’)  of  EU  rules,  given  that  the  means  of  ensuring  a  comparable  level  of 
protection may vary between different privacy systems, often reflecting different legal 
traditions, it nevertheless requires a strong level of protection.  

This standard is justified by the fact that an adequacy decision essentially extends to a 
third  country  the  benefits  of  the  single  market  in  terms  of  the  free  flow  of  data. 
However, it also means that sometimes there will be relevant differences between the 
level  of  protection  ensured  in  the  third  country  in  question  compared  to  the  GDPR 
that need to be bridged, for instance through the negotiation of additional safeguards. 
Such safeguards should be viewed positively as they further strengthen the protections 
available to individuals in the EU. At the same time, the Commission agrees with the 
Board  on  the  importance  of  continuously  monitoring  their  application  in  practice, 
including effective enforcement by the third country data protection authority119. 

The  GDPR  clarifies  that  adequacy  decisions  are  ‘living  instruments’  that  should  be 
continuously monitored and periodically reviewed120. In line with these requirements, 

116  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU  of  6  October  2015  in  Case  C-362/14,  Maximillian 
Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (‘Schrems’), points 73, 74 and 96. See also Recital 104 of 
the GDPR, which refers to the standard of essential equivalence. 

117  Article 45(2) and Recital 104 GDPR. See also Schrems  , points 75, 91-91. 
118  Adequacy  Referential,  WP 

254 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=614108). 

February 

rev. 

01, 

6 

2018 

(available 

at: 

119  Contribution from the Board, pp. 5-6. 
120  Article 45(4) and (5) GDPR require the Commission to monitor developments in third countries on 
an ongoing basis and to regularly  – at least every  four  years  – review an adequacy  finding. They 
also give the Commission the power to repeal, amend or suspend an adequacy decision if it finds 
that  the  country  or  international  organisation  concerned  no  longer  ensures  an  adequate  level  of 
protection.  Article  97(2)(a)  GDPR  furthermore  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  an  evaluation 
report to the European Parliament and the Council by 2020. See also the judgment of the Court of 

32 

 
 
                                                 
 
the  Commission  has  regular  exchanges  with  the  relevant  authorities  to  pro-actively 
follow-up on new developments. For example, since the adoption of the decision on 
the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in 2016121, the Commission, together with representatives 
from  the  Board,  carried  out  three  annual  reviews  to  evaluate  all  aspects  of  the 
functioning  of  the  framework.122  These  reviews  relied  on  information  obtained 
through exchanges with the U.S. authorities as well as input from other stakeholders, 
such as EU data protection authorities, civil society and trade associations. They have 
allowed to improve the practical functioning of various elements of the framework. In 
a wider perspective, the annual reviews contributed to establishing a broader dialogue 
with the U.S. administration on privacy in general, and the limitations and safeguards 
with respect to national security in particular.  

As part of its first evaluation of the GDPR, the Commission is also required to review 
the  adequacy  decisions  adopted  under  the  1995  Directive123.  The  Commission 
services have engaged in an intense dialogue with each of the 11 concerned countries 
and territories to assess how their personal data protection systems have evolved since 
the  adequacy  decision  was  adopted  and  whether  they  meet  the  standard  set  by  the 
GDPR. The need to ensure the continuity of such decisions, as they are a key tool for 
trade and international cooperation, is one of the factors that has prompted several of 
these countries and territories to modernise and strengthen their privacy laws. These 
are certainly welcome developments. Additional safeguards are being discussed with 
some of these countries and territories to address relevant differences in protection.  

However, given that the Court of Justice in a judgment to be delivered on 16 July may 
provide  clarifications  that  could  be  relevant  for  certain  elements  of  the  adequacy 
standard, the Commission will report separately on the evaluation of the mentioned 11 
adequacy  decisions  after  the  Court  of  Justice  has  handed  down  its  judgment  in  that 
case.124 

Justice  of  the  EU  of  6  October  2015  in  Case  C-362/14,  Maximillian  Schrems  v  Data  Protection 
Commissioner, point 76.  

121  Commission  implementing  decision  (EU)  2016/1250  of  12  July  2016  pursuant  to  Directive 
95/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  adequacy  of  the  protection 
provided  by  the  EU-U.S.  Privacy  Shield.  This  adequacy  decision  is  a  specific  case  that,  in  the 
absence  of  general  data  protection  legislation  in  the  U.S.,  relies  on  commitments  made  by 
participating companies (that are enforceable under U.S. law) to apply the data protection standards 
set out by this arrangement. Moreover, the Privacy Shield builds on the specific representations and 
assurances  made  by  the  U.S.  government  as  regards  access  for  national  security  purposes  that 
underpin the adequacy finding 

122  Reviews  took  place  in  2017  (Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council on the first annual review of the functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, COM(2017) 
611 final), 2018 (Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
second annual review of the functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, COM(2018) 860 final) and 
2019 (Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the third annual review of 
the functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, COM(2019) 495 final).  

123 These existing adequacy decisions concern countries that are closely integrated with the European 
Union and its Member States (Switzerland, Andorra, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man), 
important trading partners (e.g. Argentina, Canada, Israel), and countries that played a pioneering 
role in developing data protection laws in their region (New Zealand, Uruguay) 

124  Case C-311/18, Data  Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems 
(“Schrems II”), concerns a reference for a preliminary ruling on the so-called standard contractual 
clauses.  However,  certain  elements  of  the  adequacy  standard  may  also  be  further  clarified  by  the 

33 

 
 
                                                                                                                                            
 
Implementing the strategy laid down in its 2017 Communication on “Exchanging and 
Protecting  Personal  Data  in  a  Globalised  World”,  the  Commission  also  engaged  in 
new  adequacy  dialogues125.  This  work  already  yielded  significant  results  involving 
key  partners  of  the  EU.  In  January  2019,  the  Commission  adopted  its  adequacy 
decision for Japan, which is based on a high degree of convergence, including through 
specific safeguards such as in the area of onward transfers and through the creation of 
a  mechanism 
individuals’  complaints  concerning 
government  access  to  personal  data  for  law  enforcement  and  national  security 
purposes.  

investigate  and  resolve 

to 

As  the  first  adequacy  finding  adopted  under  the  GDPR,  the  framework  agreed  with 
Japan provides a useful precedent for future decisions126. This includes the fact that it 
was  reciprocated  on  the  Japanese  side  with  an  “adequacy”  finding  for  the  EU. 
Together,  these  mutual  adequacy  findings  create  the  largest  area  of  safe  and  free 
personal  data  flows  in  the  world,  thereby  complementing  the  EU-Japan  Economic 
Partnership Agreement. In fact, the arrangement supports around EUR 124 billion of 
trade in goods and EUR 42.5 billion of trade in services every year. 

The adequacy process is also at an advanced stage with South Korea. One important 
outcome  thereof  is  South  Korea’s  recent  legislative  reform  that  led  to  the 
establishment  of  an  independent  data  protection  authority  equipped  with  strong 
enforcement  powers.  This  illustrates  how  an  adequacy  dialogue  can  contribute  to 
increased convergence between the EU’s data protection rules and those of a foreign 
country. 

The Commission fully agrees with the call from stakeholders to intensify the dialogue 
with  selected  third  countries  in  view  of  possible  new  adequacy  findings127.  It  is 
actively  exploring  this  possibility  with  other  important  partners  in  Asia,  Latin 
America and the Neighbourhood, building on the current trend towards upward global 
convergence  in  data  protection  standards.  For  example,  comprehensive  privacy 
legislation  has  been  adopted  or  is  at  an  advanced  stage  of  the  legislative  process  in 
Latin America (Brazil, Chile), and promising developments are taking place in Asia 
(e.g.  India,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka,  Taiwan  and  Thailand),  Africa  (e.g. 
Ethiopia,  Kenya)  as  well  as  in  the  European  Eastern  and  Southern  neighbourhood 

Court. The hearing in this case took place on 9 July 2019 and the judgment has been announced for 
16 July 2020. 

125  See supra fn 109. The Commission explained that the following criteria will be taken into account 
when assessing with which third countries a dialogue on adequacy should be pursued: (i) the extent 
of the EU's (actual or potential) commercial relations with the third country, including the existence 
of  a  free  trade  agreement  or  ongoing  negotiations;  (ii)  the  extent  of  personal  data  flows  from  the 
EU,  reflecting  geographical  and/or  cultural  ties;  (iii)  the  country’s  pioneering  role  in  the  field  of 
privacy and data protection that could serve as a model for other countries in its region; and (iv) the 
overall  political  relationship  with  the  country,  in  particular  as  regards  the  promotion  of  common 
values and shared objectives at international level. 

126  European  Parliament,  Resolution  of  13  December  2018  on  the  adequacy  of  the  protection  of 
personal data afforded by Japan (2018/2979(RSP)), point 27; Contribution from the Board, pp. 5-6.  
127  See  e.g.  European  Parliament,  Resolution  of  12  December  2017  on  ‘Towards  a  digital  trade 
strategy’  (2017/2065(INI)),  points  8,  9;  Council  position  and  findings  on  the  application  of  the 
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 19.12.2019 (14994/1/19), paragraph 17; Contribution 
from the Board, p. 5.  

34 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                            
(e.g. Georgia, Tunisia). Where possible, the Commission will work towards achieving 
comprehensive adequacy decisions covering both the private and public sector128.  

Moreover,  the  GDPR  also  introduced  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  adopt 
adequacy findings for international organisations. At a time when some international 
organisations  are  modernising  their  data  protection  regimes  by  putting  in  place 
comprehensive rules,  as  well as mechanisms that provide independent oversight  and 
redress, this avenue could be explored for the first time. 

Adequacy  also  plays  an  important  role  in  the  context  of  the  relationship  with  the 
United Kingdom following Brexit, provided that the applicable conditions are met. It 
constitutes  an  enabling  factor  for  trade,  including  digital  trade,  and  an  essential 
prerequisite for a close and ambitious cooperation in the area of law enforcement and 
security129.  Moreover,  given  the  significance  of  data  flows  with  the  UK  and  its 
proximity to the EU market, a high degree of convergence between data protection 
rules  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel  is  an  important  element  for  ensuring  a  level 
playing  field.  In  line  with  the  Political  Declaration  on  the  Future  Relationship 
between the EU and the UK, the Commission is currently carrying out an adequacy 
the  Law  Enforcement  Directive130. 
assessment  under  both 
Considering the autonomous and unilateral nature of an adequacy assessment, these 
talks  follow  a  separate  track  from  the  negotiations  on  an  agreement  on  the  future 
relationship between the EU and the UK. 

the  GDPR  and 

Finally,  the  Commission  welcomes  that  other  countries  are  putting  in  place  data 
transfer mechanisms similar to an adequacy finding. In doing so, they often recognise 
the EU and countries for which the Commission has adopted an adequacy decision, as 
safe  destinations  for  transfers131.  The  growing  number  of  countries  benefitting  from 
EU  adequacy  decisions,  on  the  one  hand,  and  this  form  of  recognition  by  other 
countries,  on  the  other  hand,  has  the  potential  of  creating  a  network  of  countries 
where  data  can  flow  freely  and  safely.  The  Commission  considers  this  a  welcome 
development that will further increase the benefits of an adequacy decision for third 
countries  and  contribute  to  global  convergence.  This  type  of  synergies  can  also 
usefully  contribute  to  the  development  of  frameworks  for  the  safe  and  free  flow  of 
data, such as in the context of the ‘data free flow with trust’ initiative (see below). 

Appropriate safeguards  

The  GDPR  provides  for  a  number  of  other  transfer  instruments  beyond  the 
comprehensive  solution  of  an  adequacy  finding.  The  flexibility  of  this  “toolbox”  is 

128  As  also  requested  by  the  Council,  see  Council  position  and  findings  on  the  application  of  the 
General  Data  Protection  Regulation  (GDPR),  19.12.2019  (14994/1/19),  paragraphs  17  and  40. 
However,  this  requires  that  the  conditions  for  an  adequacy  finding  concerning  data  transfers  to 
public authorities are met, including as regards independent oversight.  

129  See  the  negotiating  directives  annexed  to  the  Council  Decision  authorising  the  opening  of 
negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a new partnership 
agreement (ST 5870/20 ADD 1 REV 3), paragraphs 13 and 118.  

130  See  revised  text  of  the  political  declaration  setting  out  the  framework  for  the  future  relationship 
between the European Union and the United Kingdom as agreed at negotiators’ level on 17 October 
2019, 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/revised_political_declaration.pdf ). 

paragraphs 

(available 

8-10 

at 

131  For example, by Argentina, Colombia, Israel, Switzerland or Uruguay.  

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
demonstrated  by  Article  46  GDPR,  which  regulates  data  transfers  based  on 
“appropriate safeguards”, including enforceable data subject rights and effective legal 
remedies. To guarantee appropriate safeguards, different instruments are available in 
order to cater to the transfer needs of both commercial operators and public bodies.  

  Standard contractual clauses (SCCs) 

The  first  group  of  these  instruments  concerns  contractual  tools,  which  can  be  either 
tailor-made, ad hoc data protection clauses agreed between an EU data exporter and a 
data  importer  outside  the  EU  authorised  by  the  competent  data  protection  authority 
(Article 46(3)(a) GDPR) or model clauses pre-approved by the Commission (Article 
46(2)(c),  (d)  GDPR132).  The  most  important  of  these  instruments  are  so-called 
standard contractual clauses (SCCs), i.e. model data protection clauses which the data 
exporter  and  the  data  importer  can  incorporate  into  their  contractual  arrangements 
(e.g.  a  service  contract  requiring  the  transfer  of  personal  data)  on  a  voluntary  basis 
and that set out the requirements related to appropriate safeguards.  
SCCs represent by far the most widely used data transfer mechanism133. Thousands of 
EU  companies  rely  on  SCCs  in  order  to  provide  a  wide  range  of  services  to  their 
clients,  suppliers,  partners  and  employees,  including  services  essential  to  the 
functioning  of  the  economy.  Their  broad  use  indicates  that  they  are  very  helpful  to 
businesses in their compliance efforts  and of particular benefit to  companies that do 
not have the resources to negotiate individual contracts with each of their commercial 
partners.  Through  their  standardisation  and  pre-approval,  SCCs  provide  companies 
with  an  easy-to-implement  tool  to  meet  data  protection  requirements  in  a  transfer 
context. 
The  existing  sets  of  SCCs134  were  adopted  and  approved  on  the  basis  of  the  1995 
Directive.  These  SCCs  remain  in  force  until  amended,  replaced  or  repealed,  if 
necessary,  by  a  Commission  decision  (Article  46(5)  of  the  GDPR).  The  GDPR 
expands  the  possibilities  to  use  SCCs  both  within  the  EU  and  for  international 
transfers. The Commission is working together with stakeholders to make use of these 
possibilities and to update existing clauses135. In order to ensure that the future design 
of  SCCs  is  fit  for  purpose,  the  Commission  has  been  collecting  feedback  on 

132  Standard  contractual  clauses  (SCCs)  for  international  transfers  always  require  Commission 
approval, but may be prepared either by the Commission itself or by a national DPA. All existing 
SCCs fall into the first category. 

133  According  to  the  IAPP-EY  Annual  Privacy  Governance  Report  2019,  “the  most  popular  of  these 
[transfer]  tools  –  year  over  year  –  are  overwhelmingly  standard  contractual  contracts:  88%  of 
respondents  in  this  year’s  survey  reported  SCCs  as  their  top  method  for  extraterritorial  data 
transfers,  followed  by  compliance  with  the  EU-U.S.  Privacy  Shield  arrangement  (60%).  For 
respondents transferring data from the EU to the U.K. (52%), 91% report they intend to use SCCs 
for data-transfer compliance after Brexit”. 

134  There  are  currently  three  sets  of  standard  contractual  clauses  adopted  by  the  Commission  for  the 
transfer of personal data to third countries: two for transfers from an EEA-controller to a non-EEA 
controller  and  one  for  transfers  from  an  EEA-controller  to  a  non-EEA-processor.  They  were 
amended in 2016, further to the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Schrems I case (C-362/14), 
to  remove  any  restrictions  on  the  competent  supervisory  authorities  to  exercise  their  powers  to 
oversee  data  transfers.  See  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-
dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc_en.  

135  See also Contribution from the Board, pp. 6-7. Likewise, the Council has called on the Commission 
“to review and revise [the SCCs] in the near future to take into account the needs of controllers and 
processors”. See Council position and findings. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
stakeholders’  experiences  with  SCCs,  through  the  ‘Multi-stakeholder  Group  on  the 
GDPR’  and  a  dedicated  workshop  held  in  September  2019,  but  also  via  multiple 
contacts with companies using SCCs as well as civil society organisations. The Board 
is also updating a number of guidelines that could be relevant for the review of SCCs, 
for instance on the concepts of controller and processor. 

Building on the feedback received, the Commission services are currently working on 
revising  the  SCCs.  In  that  context,  a  number  of  areas  for  improvement  have  been 
identified, in particular with regard to the following aspects:  

1.  Updating the SCCs in light of new requirements introduced by the GDPR, such 
as those concerning the controller-processor relationship under Article 28 GDPR 
(in particular the processor obligations), the transparency obligations of the data 
importer  (in  terms  of  the  necessary  information  to  be  provided  to  the  data 
subject), etc.  

2.  Addressing  a  number  of  transfer  scenarios  that  are  not  covered  by  the  current 
SCCs,  such  as  the  transfer  of  data  from  an  EU  processor  to  a  non-EU  (sub) 
processor, but also for instance situations where the controller is located outside 
the EU136. 

3.  Better  reflecting  the  realities  of  processing  operations  in  the  modern  digital 
economy,  where  such  operations  often  involve  multiple  data  importers  and 
exporters,  long  and  often  complex  processing  chains,  evolving  business 
relationships,  etc.  In  order  to  cater  for  such  situations,  solutions  being  explored 
include,  for  example,  the  possibility  to  enable  the  signing  of  SCCs  by  multiple 
parties or accession of new parties throughout the lifetime of the contract. 

In  addressing  these  points,  the  Commission  is  also  considering  ways  to  make  the 
current  ‘architecture’  of  the  SCCs  more  user  friendly,  for  example  by  replacing 
multiple sets of SCCs by a single comprehensive document. The challenge is to strike 
a good balance between the need for clarity and a certain degree of standardisation, on 
the one hand, and the necessary flexibility that will allow the clauses to be used by a 
number  of  operators  with  different  requirements,  in  different  contexts  and  for 
different types of transfers, on the other hand. 

Another important aspect to consider is the possible need, in light of current litigation 
before  the  Court  of  Justice137,  to  further  clarify  the  safeguards  as  regards  access  by 
foreign public authorities to data transferred based on SCCs, in particular for national 
security purposes. This may include requiring the data importer or the data exporter, 
or  both,  to  take  action,  and  to  clarify  the  role  of  data  protection  authorities  in  that 
context. Although the revision of the SCCs is well-advanced, it will be necessary to 
wait for the judgment of the Court to reflect any possible additional requirement in the 
revised clauses, before a draft decision on a new set of SCCs can be submitted to the 

136  Several submissions to the public consultation have commented on this last scenario, often raising 
concerns  that  requiring  EU  processors  to  ensure  appropriate  safeguards  in  their  relationship  with 
non-EU  controllers  would  place  them  at  a  competitive  disadvantage  vis-à-vis  foreign  processors 
offering similar services.  

137 See Schrems II case. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
Board  for  its  opinion  and  then  proposed  for  adoption  through  the  “comitology 
procedure”138.  

In  parallel,  the  Commission  is  in  contact  with  international  partners  that  are 
developing  similar  tools.139  This  dialogue,  allowing  for  an  exchange  of  experiences 
and  best  practices,  could  significantly  contribute  to  further  developing  convergence 
‘on the ground’, and in this way facilitate compliance with cross-border transfer rules 
for companies operating across different regions of the world.  

  Binding corporate rules (BCRs) 

Another important instrument are the so-called binding corporate rules (BCRs). These 
are  legally  binding  policies  and  arrangements  that  apply  to  the  members  of  a 
corporate group, including their employees (Articles, 46(2)(b), 47 of the GDPR). The 
use of BCRs allows personal data to move freely among the various group members 
worldwide – dispensing with the need to have contractual arrangements between each 
and every corporate entity – while ensuring that the same high level of protection of 
personal  data is  complied with  throughout  the group. They offer a particularly  good 
solution  for  complex  and  large  corporate  groups  and  for  close  cooperation  of 
enterprises  exchanging  data  across  multiple  jurisdictions.  Unlike  for  the  1995 
Directive, under the GDPR BCRs can be used by a group of enterprises engaged in a 
joint economic activity but not forming part of the same corporate group.  

Procedurally, BCRs have to be approved by the competent data protection authorities, 
based on a non-binding opinion by the Board140. To guide this process, the Board has 
reviewed  the  BCR  ‘referentials’  (setting  out  substantive  standards)  for  controllers141 
and processors142 in light of the GDPR, and continues to update these documents on 
the  basis  of  the  practical  experience  gained  by  supervisory  authorities.  It  has  also 
adopted  various  guidance  documents  to  help  applicants,  and  streamline  the 
application and approval process for BCRs143. According to the Board, more than 40 
BCRs  are  currently  in  the  pipeline  for  approval,  half  of  which  are  expected  to  be 
approved  by  the  end  of  2020144.  It  is  important  that  data  protection  authorities 
continue working on further streamlining the approval process, as the length of such 

138 In accordance with Article 46(2)(c) GDPR, standard contractual clauses have to be adopted through 
the  examination  procedure  laid  down  under  Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011  laying  down  the  rules  and  general 
principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of 
implementing powers - OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13–18. This involves in particular a positive decision 
from a committee composed of representatives of the Member States. 

139  This includes, for instance, the work currently being carried out by the ASEAN Member States to 
develop  ‘ASEAN  model  contractual  clauses’.  See  ASEAN,  Key  Approaches  for  ASEAN  Cross 
Border  Data  Flows  Mechanism  (available  at:  https://asean.org/storage/2012/05/Key-Approaches-
for-ASEAN-Cross-Border-Data-Flows-Mechanism.pdf). 

140  For  an  overview  of  the  EDPB  opinions  rendered  so  far,  see  https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-

tools/consistency-findings/opinions_en. 

141  https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=614109.  
142  https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=614110. 
143  These documents were adopted (by the former Article 29 Working Party) following the entry into 
transition  period.  See  WP263 
the  end  of 
WP264 

force  of 
(https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=623056); 
(https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file2/wp264_art29_wp_bcr-c_application_form.pdf); 
WP265 (https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=623848). 

the  GDPR,  but  before 

the 

144  Contribution from the Board, p. 7. 

38 

 
 
                                                 
procedures  is  often mentioned by  stakeholders as a practical obstacle to the broader 
use of BCRs. 

Finally, regarding specifically BCRs approved by the UK data protection authority – 
the  Information  Commissioner  Office  –  companies  will  be  able  to  continue  to  use 
them  as  a  valid  transfer  mechanism  under  the  GDPR  after  the  end  of  the  transition 
period under the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, but only if they are amended so that 
any  connection  to  the  UK  legal  order  is  replaced  with  appropriate  references  to 
corporate entities and competent authorities within the EU. The approval of any new 
BCRs should be sought from one of the supervisory authorities in the EU. 

  Certification mechanisms and codes of conduct 

In  addition  to  modernising  and  broadening  the  application  of  the  already  existing 
transfer tools, the GDPR has also introduced new instruments, thereby expanding the 
possibilities for international transfers. This includes the use, under certain conditions, 
of approved codes of conduct and certification mechanisms (such as privacy seals or 
marks) for ensuring appropriate safeguards. These are bottom-up tools that allow for 
tailor-made solutions – as a general accountability mechanism (see Articles 40 to 42 
of  the  GDPR)  and,  specifically,  for  international  data  transfers  –  reflecting,  for 
instance, the specific features and needs of a given sector or industry, or of particular 
data flows. By calibrating the obligations with the risks, Codes of Conduct can also be 
a very useful and cost-effective way for small and medium-sized businesses to meet 
their GDPR obligations. 

As regards certification mechanisms, although the Board adopted guidelines to foster 
their  use  within  the  EU,  its  work  on  developing  criteria  to  approve  certification 
mechanisms as international transfer tools is still ongoing. The same is true for codes 
of  conduct,  regarding  which  the  Board  is  currently  working  on  guidelines  for  using 
them as a tool for transfers. 

Given  the  importance  of  providing  operators  with  a  broad  range  of  transfer 
instruments  that  are  adapted  to  their  needs,  and  the  potential  that  in  particular 
certification  mechanisms  hold  for  facilitating  data  transfers  while  ensuring  a  high 
level  of  data  protection,  the  Commission  urges  the  Board  to  finalise  as  soon  as 
possible  its  guidance  in  this  regard.  This  concerns  both  substantive  (criteria)  and 
procedural aspects (approval, monitoring, etc.). Stakeholders have expressed a lot of 
interest  in  these  transfer  mechanisms  and  should  be  able  to  make  full  use  of  the 
GDPR’s toolkit. The Board’s  guidelines  would also  contribute to  promoting the  EU 
model  for  data  protection  globally  and  foster  convergence  as  other  privacy  systems 
are using similar instruments.  

Valuable  lessons  can  be  drawn  from  existing  standardisation  efforts  in  the  area  of 
privacy,  both  at  European  and  international  level.  One  interesting  example  is  the 
recently released international standard ISO 27701145, which aims to help businesses 
meet privacy requirements and manage risks related to the processing of personal data 
through ‘privacy information management systems’ . Although certification under the 
standard as such does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 42 and 43 of the GDPR, 

145The 

list  of 

specific 
https://www.iso.org/standard/71670.html. 

requirements  making  up 

this 

ISO 

standard 

is  available  at: 

39 

 
 
                                                 
applying Privacy Information Management Systems can contribute to accountability, 
including in the context of international data transfers. 

 

International agreements and administrative arrangements 

The GDPR also makes it possible to ensure appropriate safeguards for data transfers 
between public authorities or bodies on the basis of international agreements (Article 
46(2)(a))  or  administrative  arrangements  (Article  46(3)(b)).  While  both  instruments 
have  to  guarantee  the  same  outcome  in  terms  of  safeguards,  including  enforceable 
data subject rights and effective legal remedies, they differ as to their legal nature and 
adoption procedure.  

in 

Unlike international agreements, which create binding obligations under international 
law,  administrative  arrangements  (e.g. 
the  form  of  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding) are typically non-binding and therefore require prior authorisation by 
the competent data protection authority (see also Recital 108 of the GDPR). One early 
example  concerns  the  administrative  arrangement  for  the  transfer  of  personal  data 
between EEA and non-EEA financial supervisors cooperating under the umbrella of 
the  International  Organisation  of  Securities  Commission  (IOSCO),  on  which  the 
Board gave its Opinion146 in early 2019. Since then, the Board has further developed 
its  interpretation  of  the  ‘minimum  safeguards’  that  international  (cooperation) 
agreements  and  administrative  arrangements  between  public  authorities  or  bodies 
(including international organisations) need to ensure to comply with the requirements 
of  Article  46  GDPR.  On  18  January  2020  it  adopted  draft  guidelines147,  thereby 
addressing  the  Member  States’  request  for  further  clarification  and  guidance  as  to 
what  may  be  considered  appropriate  safeguards  for  transfers  between  public 
authorities148.  The  Board  strongly  recommends  that  public  authorities  use  these 
guidelines as a reference point for their negotiations with third parties149.  

The guidelines demonstrate the flexibility in the design of such instruments, including 
on  important  aspects  such  as  oversight150  and  redress151.  This  should  allow  public 

146  EDPB, Opinion 4/2019 on the draft  Administrative  Arrangement for the transfer of personal data 
between  European  Economic  Area  (EEA)  Financial  Supervisory  Authorities  and  non-EEA 
Financial Supervisory Authorities, 12.2.2019. 

147  EDPB, Guidelines 2/2020 on articles 46(2)(a) and 46(3)(b) of Regulation 2016/679 for transfers of 
personal  data  between  EEA  and  non-EEA  public  authorities  and  bodies  (draft  available  at: 
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/public-consultations-art-704/2020/guidelines-22020-articles-
46-2-and-46-3-b_en ). According to the EDPB, “[t]he competent [supervisory authority] will base 
its examination on the general recommendations set out in these guidelines, but might also ask for 
more guarantees depending on the specific case.” The EDPB submitted these draft guidelines to a 
public consultation that ended on 18 May 2020.   

148  Council position and findings, paragraph 20. 
149  At the same time, the EDPB clarifies that public authorities remain “free to rely on other relevant 
tools  providing  for  appropriate  safeguards  in  accordance  with  Article  46  GDPR.”  Regarding  the 
choice of instrument, the EDPB underlines that “[i]t should be carefully assessed whether or not to 
make  use  of  non-legally  binding  administrative  arrangements  to  provide  safeguards  in  the  public 
sector, in view of the purpose of the processing and the nature of the data at hand. If data protection 
rights and redress for EEA individuals are not provided for in the domestic law of the third country, 
preference should be given to concluding a  legally binding agreement.  Irrespective of the type of 
instrument  adopted,  the  measures  in  place  have  to  be  effective  to  ensure  the  appropriate 
implementation, enforcement and supervision” (paragraph 67). 

150  This may include, for instance, combining internal checks (with a commitment to inform the other 
party  of  any  instance  of  non-compliance  with  independent  oversight  through  external  or  at  least 

40 

 
 
                                                 
 
authorities  to  overcome  the  difficulties  in,  for  instance,  ensuring  enforceable  data 
subject  rights  through  non-binding  arrangements.  An  important  element  of  such 
arrangements  is  their  continuous  monitoring  by  the  competent  data  protection 
authority  –  supported  by  information  and  record-keeping  requirements  –  and  the 
suspension  of  data  flows  if  appropriate  safeguards  can  no  longer  be  ensured  in 
practice. 

Derogations 

Finally,  the  GDPR  clarifies  the  use  of  so-called  ‘derogations’.  These  are  specific 
grounds  for  data  transfers  (e.g.  explicit  consent152,  performance  of  a  contract  or 
important reasons of public interest) recognised in law, and on which entities can rely 
in the absence of other transfer tools and under certain conditions.  
To clarify the use of such statutory grounds, the Board has issued specific guidance153 
and has interpreted Article 49 in  a number of cases with  respect to  specific transfer 
scenarios154. Due to their exceptional character, the Board considers that derogations 
have  to  be  interpreted  restrictively,  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  Despite  their  strict 
interpretation, these grounds cover a broad range of transfer scenarios. This includes 
in particular data transfers by both public authorities and private entities necessary for 
‘important reasons of public interest’, for example between competition, financial, tax 
or  customs  authorities,  services  competent  for  social  security  matters  or  for  public 
health  (such  as  in  the  case  of  contact  tracing  for  contagious  diseases  or  in  order  to 
eliminate  doping  in  sport)155.  Another  area  is  that  of  cross-border  cooperation  for 
criminal law enforcement purposes, in particular as regards serious crime156.  

through functionally autonomous mechanisms, as well as the possibility for the transferring public 
body to suspend or terminate the transfer. 

151  This may include, for instance, quasi-judicial, binding mechanisms (e.g. arbitration) or alternative 
dispute resolution mechanisms, combined with the possibility for the transferring public authority 
to  suspend  or  terminate  the  transfer  of  personal  data  if  the  parties  do  not  succeed  in  resolving  a 
dispute amicably, plus a commitment from the receiving public body to return or delete the personal 
data.  When  opting  for  alternative  redress  mechanisms  in  binding  and  enforceable  instruments 
because there is no possibility to ensure effective judicial redress, the EDPB recommends seeking 
the advice of the competent supervisory authority before concluding these instruments. 

152  This is a change from Directive 95/46 which merely required ‘unambiguous’ consent. In addition, 

the general requirements for consent pursuant to Article 4(11) GDPR apply.  

153  EDPB,  Guidelines  2/2018  on  derogations  of  Article  49  under  Regulation  2016/679,  25.5.2018 
at: 

(available 
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_2_2018_derogations_en.pdf). 
154  This includes, for instance, international transfers of health data for research purposes in the context 
of the  COVID-19 outbreak. See EDPB, Guidelines 03/2020 on the processing of data  concerning 
health  for  the  purpose  of  scientific  research  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak,  21.4.2020 
(available 
at: 
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_202003_healthdatascientificresea
rchcovid19_en.pdf). 

155  See Recital 112.  
156  See  Brief  of  the  European  Commission  on  behalf  of  the  European  Union  as  Amicus  Curiae  in 
Support of Neither Party in the Case US v. Microsoft, p. 15: “In general, Union as well as Member 
State  law  recognize  the  importance  of  the  fight  against  serious  crime—and  thus  criminal  law 
enforcement and international cooperation in that respect—as an objective of general interest. […] 
Article 83 of the TFEU identifies several areas of crime that are particularly serious and have cross-
at: 
border 

trafficking.” 

dimensions, 

(available 

illicit 

drug 

such 

as 

41 

 
 
                                                                                                                                            
 
The Board has clarified that, although the relevant public interest must be recognised 
in  EU  or  Member  State  law,  this  can  be  also  established  on  the  basis  of  “an 
international  agreement  or  convention  which  recognises  a  certain  objective  and 
provides for international cooperation to foster that objective can be an indicator when 
assessing the existence of a public interest pursuant to Article 49(1)(d), as long as the 
EU or the Member States are a party to that agreement or convention”157.  

Decisions by foreign courts or authorities: not a ground for transfers  

In  addition  to  positively setting out  the  grounds  for data transfers, Chapter V of the 
GDPR  also  clarifies,  in  its  Article  48,  that  orders  from  courts  and  decisions  of 
administrative  authorities  outside  of  the  EU  in  themselves  do  not  provide  such 
grounds,  unless  they  are  recognised  or  made  enforceable  based  on  an  international 
agreement (e.g. a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty). Any disclosure by the requested 
entity  in  the  EU  to  the  foreign  court  or  authority  in  response  to  such  an  order  or 
decision constitutes an international data transfer that needs to be based on one of the 
mentioned transfer instruments.158  

The GDPR does not constitute a “blocking statute” and will, under certain conditions, 
permit a transfer in response to an appropriate law enforcement request from a third 
country. The important point is that it is EU law that should determine whether this is 
the case and on the basis of which safeguards such transfers can take place. 

The  Commission  explained  the  functioning  of  Article  48  GDPR,  including  the 
possible reliance on the public interest derogation, in the context of a production order 
(warrant) by a foreign criminal law enforcement authority in the Microsoft case before 
the  U.S.  Supreme  Court.159  In  its  submission,  the  Commission  stressed  the  EU’s 
interest  in  ensuring  that  law  enforcement  cooperation  takes  place  “within  a  legal 
framework that avoids conflicts of law, and is based on […] respect for each others’ 
fundamental  interests  in  both  privacy  and  law  enforcement”160.  In  particular,  “from 
the  perspective  of  public  international  law,  when  a  public  authority  requires  a 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/23655/20171213123137791_17-
2%20ac%20European%20Commission%20for%20filing.pdf). 

157  EDPB, Derogation Guidelines (supra fn. 153), p. 10. The EDPB further clarified that,  while data 
transfers  based  on  the  public  interest  derogation  must  not  be  “large  scale”  or  “systematic”,  but 
“need  to  be  restricted  to  specific  situations  and  […]  meet  the  strict  necessity  test”,  there  is  no 
requirement for them to be “occasional”. 

158  This  is  made  clear  by  the  wording  of  Article  48  GDPR  (“without  prejudice  to  other  grounds  for 
transfer pursuant to this Chapter”) and the accompanying Recital 115 (“[t]ransfers should only be 
allowed where the conditions of this Regulation for a transfer to third countries are met. This may 
be  the  case,  inter  alia,  where  disclosure  is  necessary  for  an  important  ground  of  public  interest 
recognised in Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject”). It is also recognised 
by the EDPB, see Derogation Guidelines (supra fn. 153), p. 5. As for all processing operations, the 
other safeguards under the Regulation must also be complied with (e.g. that data is transferred for a 
specific purpose, is relevant, limited to what is necessary for the purpose of the request, etc.). 

159  Microsoft  submission  (supra  fn.  156).  As  the  Commission  explained,  the  GDPR  thus  makes 
MLATs the “preferred option” for transfers as such treaties “provide for collection of evidence by 
consent, and embody a carefully negotiated balance between the interests of different states that is 
designed to mitigate jurisdictional conflicts that can otherwise arise.” See also EDPB, Derogation 
Guidelines (supra fn. 153), p. 5 (“In situations where there is an international agreement, such as a 
mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT), EU companies should generally refuse direct requests and 
refer the requesting third country authority to existing MLAT or agreement”). 

160  Microsoft submission (supra fn. 156), p. 4. 

42 

 
 
                                                                                                                                            
company  established  in  its  own  jurisdiction  to  produce  electronic  data  stored  on  a 
server in a foreign jurisdiction, the principles of territoriality and comity under public 
international law are engaged”161.  

This  is  also  reflected  in  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  European 
Production  and  Preservation  Orders  for  electronic  evidence  in  criminal  matters162, 
which contains a specific ‘comity clause’ that makes it possible to raise an objection 
against  a  production  order  if  compliance  would  conflict  with  the  laws  of  a  third 
country  prohibiting  disclosure  in  particular  on  the  ground  that  this  is  necessary  to 
protect the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned163.  

Ensuring  comity  is  important,  given  that  law  enforcement  –  like  crime  and  in 
particular cybercrime – is increasingly cross-border and thus often raises jurisdictional 
questions  and  creates  potential  conflicts  of  law164.  Not  surprisingly,  the  best  way  of 
addressing  these  issues  is  through  international  agreements  that  provide  for  the 
necessary  limitations  and  safeguards  for  cross-border  access  to  personal  data, 
including  by  ensuring  a  high  level  of  data  protection  on  the  side  of  the  requesting 
authority.  

The  Commission,  acting  on  behalf  of  the  EU,  is  currently  engaged  in  multilateral 
negotiations  for  a Second Additional  Protocol  to the Council of Europe  Cybercrime 
(‘Budapest’) Convention, which aims to enhance existing rules to obtain cross-border 
access  to  electronic  evidence  in  criminal  investigations  while  ensuring  appropriate 
data protection safeguards as part of the Protocol165. Similarly, bilateral negotiations 
have started on an agreement between the EU and the United States on cross-border 

161  Microsoft submission (supra fn. 156), p. 6. 
162  European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters, 17.4.2018 
(COM(2018) 225 final). The Council adopted its general approach on the proposed Regulation on 
7.12.2018 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-
releases/2018/12/07/regulation-on-cross-border-access-to-eevidence-council-agrees-its-position/#). 
See also EDPS, Opinion 7/19 on proposals regarding European Production and Preservation Orders 
(available  at:  https://edps.europa.eu/data-
in  criminal  matters 
for  electronic  evidence 
protection/ourwork/publications/opinions/electronic-evidence-criminal-matters_en). 

(available 

at: 

163  The Explanatory Memorandum, p. 21, makes clear that, in addition to ensuring comity with respect 
to  the  sovereign  interests  of  third  countries,  protecting  the  individual  concerned  and  avoiding 
conflicts of law for service providers, one important motivation for the comity clause is reciprocity, 
i.e. to ensure respect for EU rules, including on the protection of personal data (Article 48 GDPR). 
See  also  Statement  of  the  Article  29  Working  Party  of  29  November  2017,  Data  protection  and 
privacy  aspects  of  cross-border  access  to  electronic  evidence  (WP29  Statement)  (available  at: 
file:///C:/Users/ralfs/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempSt
ate/Downloads/20171207_e-Evidence_Statement_FINALpdf%20(1).pdf), p. 9. 

164  See WP29 Statement (supra fn. 163), p. 6. 
165  See  Recommendation  for  a  Council  Decision  authorising  the  participation  in  negotiations  on  a 
second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No. 185), 
5.2.2019 (COM(2019) 71 final). See also EDPS, Opinion 3/2019 regarding the participation in the 
negotiations  in  view  of  a  Second  Additional  Protocol  to  the  Budapest  Cybercrime  Convention, 
2.4.2019 
https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/19-04-
02_edps_opinion_budapest_convention_en.pdf); EDPB, Contribution to the consultation on a draft 
second  additional  protocol  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Cybercrime  (Budapest 
at: 
Convention), 
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpbcontributionbudapestconvention_en.pdf). 

13.11.2019 

(available 

(available 

at: 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
access  to  electronic  evidence  for  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters166.  The 
Commission counts on the support of the European Parliament and the Council, and 
the guidance of the EDPB, throughout these negotiations. 

More generally, it is important to ensure that when companies active in the European 
market  are  called  on  the  basis  of  a  legitimate  request  to  share  data  for  law 
enforcement  purposes,  they  can  do  so  without  facing  conflicts  of  law  and  in  full 
respect  of  EU  fundamental  rights.  To  improve  such  transfers,  the  Commission  is 
committed to develop appropriate legal frameworks with its international partners to 
avoid  conflicts  of  law  and  support  effective  forms  of  cooperation,  notably  by 
providing  for  the  necessary  data  protection  safeguards,  and  thereby  contribute  to  a 
more effective fight against crime.   

7.3 

International cooperation in the area of data protection 

Fostering  convergence  between  different  privacy  systems  also  means  learning  from 
each other, through the exchange of knowledge, experience and best practices. Such 
exchanges  are  essential  to  address  new  challenges  that  are  increasingly  global  in 
nature  and  scope.  This  is  why  the  Commission  has  intensified  its  dialogue  on  data 
protection  and  data  flows  with  a  broad  range  of  actors  and  in  different  fora,  at 
bilateral, regional and multilateral level. 

The bilateral dimension 

Following the adoption of the GDPR, there has been an increasing interest in the EU’s 
experience  in  the  design,  negotiation  and  implementation  of  modern  privacy  rules. 
Dialogue with countries going through similar processes has taken several forms.  

The Commission services have made submissions to a number of public consultations 
organised  by  foreign  governments  considering  legislation  in  the  area  of  privacy,  for 
example  by  the  US167,  India168,  Malaysia  and  Ethiopia.  In  some  third  countries,  the 
Commission’s services had the privilege to testify before the competent parliamentary 
bodies, for example in Brazil169, Chile170, Ecuador, and Tunisia171.  

166  See Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations in view of an 
agreement between the EU and the United States of America on cross-border access to electronic 
evidence  for  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters,  5.2.2019  (COM(2019)  70  final).  See  also 
EDPS, Opinion 2/2019 on the negotiating mandate of an EU-US agreement on cross-border access 
(available  at:  https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/19-04-
to  electronic  evidence 
02_edps_opinion_on_eu_us_agreement_on_e-evidence_en.pdf). 

167 See DG Justice and Consumers submission of 9 November 2018 in response to a request for public 
comments on a proposed approach to consumer privacy [Docket No. 180821780-8780-01] by the 
at: 
US  National  Telecommunications 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european_commission_submission_on_a_proposed_approa
ch_to_consumer_privacy.pdf ) 

Information  Administration 

(available 

and 

168  See  DG  Justice  and  Consumers  submission  of  19  November  2018  on  the  draft  Personal  Data 
Protection Bill of India 2018 to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (available 
at:https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/53963/submission-draft-personal-data-protection-bill-
india-2018-directorate-general-justice_en). 
17 
plenary  meeting 

Senate 
April 
(https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/sessao-plenaria/-/pauta/23384  ),  meeting  of  the  10 
the  Brazilian 
April 
Congress(https://www12.senado.leg.br/ecidadania/visualizacaoaudiencia?id=15392),  and  meeting 

Joint  Committee 

on  MP 

869/2018 

Brazilian 

2019 

2018 

See 

the 

the 

169 

of 

of 

of 

of 

44 

 
 
                                                 
 
Moreover,  within  the  context  of  ongoing  reforms  of  data  protection  laws,  dedicated 
meetings  took  place  with  government  representatives  or  parliamentary  delegations 
from many regions of the world (e.g. Georgia, Kenya, Taiwan, Thailand, Morocco). 
This  included  the  organisation  of  seminars  and  study  visits,  for  example  with 
representatives of the Indonesian government and a delegation of staffers from the US 
Congress.  This  provided  opportunities  to  clarify  important  concepts  of  the  GDPR, 
improve  mutual  understanding  of  privacy  matters  and  illustrate  the  benefits  of 
convergence  for  ensuring  a  high  level  of  protection  of  individual  rights,  trade  and 
cooperation. In some cases, it also allowed cautioning against certain misconceptions 
of data protection that can lead to the introduction of protectionist measures such as 
forced localisation requirements.  

Since  the  adoption  of  the  GDPR,  the  Commission  has  also  engaged  with  several 
international  organisations,  including  in  light  of  the  importance  of  data  exchanges 
with those organisations in a number of policy areas. In particular, a specific dialogue 
has  been  established  with  the  United  Nations,  with  a  view  to  facilitate  discussions 
with  all  involved  stakeholders  to  ensure  smooth  data  transfers  and  develop  further 
convergence between the respective data protection regimes. As part of this dialogue, 
the  Commission  will  work  closely  with  the  EDPB  to  further  clarify  how  EU  public 
and private operators can comply with their GDPR obligations when exchanging data 
with international organisation such as the UN. 

The Commission stands ready to continue sharing the lessons learned from its reform 
process  with  interested  countries  and  international  organisations,  in  the  same  way  it 
learned from other systems when developing its proposal for new EU data protection 
rules.  This  type  of  dialogue  is  mutually  beneficial  for  the  EU  and  its  partners  as  it 
allows to obtain a better understanding of the fast evolving privacy landscape and to 
exchange views on emerging legal and technological solutions.  

It is in this spirit that the Commission is setting up a “Data Protection Academy” to 
foster  exchanges  between  European  and  third  country  regulators  and,  in  this  way, 
improve cooperation ‘on the ground’.  

In addition there is a need to develop appropriate legal instruments for closer forms of 
cooperation and mutual  assistance, including by  allowing the necessary exchange of 
information in the context of investigations. The Commission will therefore make use 
of the powers granted in this area by Article 50 of the GDPR and, in particular, seek 
authorisation  to  open  negotiations  for  the  conclusion  of  enforcement  cooperation 

of  26  November  2019  of  the  Special  Committee  of  the  Brazilian  Chamber  of  Deputies 
(https://www.camara.leg.br/noticias/616579-comissao-discutira-protecao-de-dados-no-ambito-das-
constituicoes-de-outros-paises/). 

170See 

meetings 

of 

29 

May 

2018 

(https://senado.cl/appsenado/index.php?mo=comisiones&ac=asistencia_sesion&idcomision=186&i
dsesion=12513&idpunto=15909&sesion=29/05/2018&listado=1), 
(https://www.senado.cl/appsenado/index.php?mo=comisiones&ac=sesiones_celebradas&idcomisio
n=186&tipo=3&legi=485&ano=2019&desde=0&hasta=0&idsesion=13603&idpunto=17283&listad
o=2) and of the Constitutional, Legislative and Justice Affairs Committee of the Chilean Senate.  
171 See meeting of 2 November 2018 of the Rights, Freedoms and External Relations Committee of the 
People 

Tunisian 
(https://www.facebook.com/1515094915436499/posts/2264094487203201/ ). 

Representatives 

Assembly 

April 

2019 

the 

the 

24 

of 

of 

45 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                            
agreements with relevant third countries. In this context, it will also take into account 
the Board’s views as to which countries should be prioritised in light of the volume of 
data transfers, the role and powers of the privacy enforcer in the third country and the 
need for enforcement cooperation to address cases of common interest. 

The multilateral dimension 

Beyond bilateral exchanges, the Commission is also actively participating in a number 
of  multilateral  fora  to  promote  shared  values  and  build  convergence  at  regional  and 
global level.  

The increasingly universal membership of the Council of Europe’s ‘Convention 108’, 
the only legally binding multilateral instrument in the area of personal data protection, 
is a clear sign of this trend towards (upward) convergence172. The Convention, which 
is also open to non-members of the Council of Europe, has already been ratified by 55 
countries,  including  a  number  of  African  and  Latin  American  States173.  The 
Commission significantly contributed to the successful outcome of the negotiations on 
the  modernisation  of  the  Convention174,  and  ensured  that  it  reflected  the  same 
principles as those enshrined in the EU data protection rules. Most EU Member States 
have now signed the Amending Protocol, although the signatures of Denmark, Malta 
and  Romania  are  still  outstanding.  Only  four  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Lithuania and Poland) have so far ratified the Amending Protocol. The Commission 
urges the three remaining Member States to sign the modernised Convention, and all 
Member States to swiftly proceed to ratification, to allow for its entry into force in the 
near  future175.  Beyond  that,  it  will  continue  to  proactively  encourage  accession  by 
third countries. 

Data flows and protection have recently also been addressed within the G20 and G7. 
In  2019,  global  leaders  for  the  first  time  endorsed  the  idea  that  data  protection 
contributes  to  trust  in  the  digital  economy  and  facilitates  data  flows.  With  the 

172  Importantly,  the  modernised  Convention  is  not  just  a  treaty  setting  out  strong  data  protection 
safeguards,  but  also  creates  a  network  of  supervisory  authorities  with  tools  for  enforcement 
cooperation  and,  with  the  Convention  Committee,  a  forum  for  discussions,  exchange  of  best 
practices and development of international standards. 

173 

174 

list 

full 

See 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-
include  Cabo  Verde,  Mauritius, 
/conventions/treaty/108/signatures.  Countries  from  Africa 
Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia, from Latin America Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay. Burkina Faso 
has been invited to join the Convention.  

members: 

of 

See 

the 

text 

of 

the 

modernised 

Convention: 

https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016807c65bf.  

175  According to its Decision on the Amending Protocol of 18 May 2018, the Committee of Ministers 
“urged  member  States  and  other  Parties  to  the  Convention  to  take  without  delay  the  necessary 
measures  to  allow  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Protocol  within  three  years  from  its  opening  for 
signature and to initiate immediately, but in any case no later than one year after the date on which 
the  Protocol  has  been  opened  for  signature,  the  process  under  their  national  law  leading  to 
ratification...” It also “instructed its Deputies to examine bi-annually, and for the first time one year 
after  the  date  of  opening  for  signature  of  the  Protocol,  the  overall  progress  made  towards 
ratification on the basis of the information to be provided to the Secretary General by each of the 
member  States  and  other  Parties  to  the  Convention  at  the  latest  one  month  ahead  of  such  an 
examination.” See https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?objectid=09000016808a3c9f. 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
Commission’s active support176, leaders endorsed the concept of “data free flow with 
trust” (DFFT) originally proposed by Japan in the G20 Osaka Declaration177 as well 
as the G7 summit in Biarritz178. This approach is also reflected in the Commission’s 
2020  Communication  on  “A  European  strategy  for  data”179  which  highlights  its 
intention  to  continue  promoting  data  sharing  with  trusted  partners  while  fighting 
against abuses such as disproportionate access of (foreign) public authorities to data.  

In doing so, the EU will also be able to rely on a number of tools in different policy 
areas that increasingly take into account the impact on privacy: for example the first-
ever EU framework for the screening of foreign investment, which will become fully 
applicable  in  October  2020,  gives  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  the  possibility  to 
screen  investment  transactions  that  have  effects  on  “access  to  sensitive  information, 
including  personal  data,  or  the  ability  to  control  such  information”  if  they  affect 
security or public order180. 

the  Commission  actively  contributed 

The Commission is working with  like-minded countries in  several  other multilateral 
fora to actively promote its values and standards. One important forum is the OECD’s 
recently  created  Working  Party  on  Data  Governance  and  Privacy  (DGP),  which  is 
pursuing a number of important initiatives related to data protection, data sharing, and 
data  transfers.  This  includes  the  evaluation  of  the  2013  OECD  Privacy  Guidelines. 
Moreover, 
the  OECD  Council 
Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence181 and ensured that the EU human-centric 
approach, meaning that AI applications must comply with fundamental rights and in 
particular  data  protection,  was  reflected  in  the  final  text.  Importantly,  the  AI 
Recommendation  –  which  has  subsequently  been  incorporated  into  the  G20  AI 
Principles  annexed  to  the  G20  Osaka  Leaders’  Declaration182  –  stipulates  the 
principles of transparency  and  explainability with a view “to  enable those adversely 
affected  by  an  AI  system  to  challenge  its  outcome  based  on  plain  and  easy-to-
understand  information  on  the  factors  and  the  logic  that  served  as  the  basis  for  the 
prediction, recommendation or decision”, thereby closely mirroring the principles of 
the GDPR as regards automated-decision making183.  

to 

176  In  the  margin  of  the  April  2019  EU-Japan  Summit,  President  Juncker  expressed  support  for 
Japan’s  ‘data  free  flow  with  trust’  initiative  and  the  launching  of  the  ‘Osaka  Track’  and 
committed the Commission to “play an active role in both initiatives”.  
the 

Leaders’ 

177  See 

Osaka 

G20 

text 

of 

Declaration: 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40124/final_g20_osaka_leaders_declaration.pdf  

178  See  text  of  the  G7  Biarritz  Strategy  for  an  open,  free  and  secure  digital  transformation: 
https://www.elysee.fr/admin/upload/default/0001/05/62a9221e66987d4e0d6ffcb058f3d2c649fc6d9
d.pdf  

179  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A European strategy for data, 
19.2.2020 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-
european-strategy-data-19feb2020_en.pdf), pp. 23-24.  

(COM(2020)  66 

final) 

180 Art. 4(1)(d) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19.03.2019 
establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investment into the Union (OJ L 79I, 
21.03.2019). 

181  https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449 
182  G20  Ministerial  Statement 

on  Trade 

and  Digital  Economy: 

digital.go.jp/dl/Ministerial_Statement_on_Trade_and_Digital_Economy.pdf  

183  See Articles 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g), 22 GDPR. 

47 

https://g20trade-

 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  is  also  stepping  up  its  dialogue  with  regional  organisations  and 
networks  that  are  increasingly  playing  a  central  role  in  shaping  common  data 
protection  standards184,  promoting  the  exchange  of  best  practices,  and  fostering 
cooperation  between  enforcers.  This  concerns,  in  particular,  the  Association  of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – including in the context of its ongoing work on 
data transfer tools –, the African Union, the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities (APPA) 
forum  and  the  Ibero-American  Data  Protection  Network,  all  of  which  launched 
important initiatives in this area and provide fora for fruitful dialogue between privacy 
regulators and other stakeholders.  

Africa  is  a  telling  example  of  the  complementarity  between  the  national,  regional 
and  global  dimensions  of  privacy.  Digital  technologies  are  quickly  and  deeply 
transforming  the  African  continent.  This  has  the  potential  to  accelerate  the 
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by boosting economic growth, 
alleviating  poverty  and  improving  people’s  lives.  Having  in  place  a  modern  data 
protection  framework  attracting  investment  and  fostering  the  development  of 
competitive business while contributing to the respect for human rights, democracy 
and the rule of law is  a  key  element  of this transformation.  The harmonisation  of 
data  protection  rules  across  Africa  would  enable  digital  market  integration,  while 
convergence  with  global  standards  would  facilitate  data  exchanges  with  the  EU. 
These  different  dimensions  of  data  protection  are  interlinked  and  mutually 
reinforcing. 

There is now a growing interest in data protection in many African countries, and 
the number of African countries that have adopted or are in the process of adopting 
modern  data  protection  rules,  have  ratified  Convention  108185  or  the  Malabo 
Convention186 continues to increase187. At the same time, the regulatory framework 
remains  highly  uneven  and  fragmented  across  the  African  continent.  Many 
countries still offer few or no data protection safeguards. Measures restricting data 
flows  are  still  widespread  and  hamper  the  development  of  a  regional  digital 
economy.  

To harness the mutual benefits of convergent data protection rules, the Commission 
will  engage  with  its  African  partners  both  bilaterally  and  in  regional  fora188.  This 

184  See, for instance, the African Union  Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection 
(‘Malabo  Convention’)  and  the  Standards  for  Data  Protection  for  the  Ibero-American  States 
developed by the Ibero-American Data Protection Network. 

Data 

Personal 

185 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing 
of 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-
/conventions/treaty/108/signatures?p_auth=DW5jevqD  
186  African  Union  Convention 
and  Personal  Data  Protection 
https://au.int/en/treaties/african-union-convention-cyber-security-and-personal-data-protection. 
In 
addition, several of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) have developed data protection rules, 
for instance, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African 
http://www.tit.comm.ecowas.int/wp-
Development  Community 
content/uploads/2015/11/SIGNED-Data-Protection-Act.pdf 
http://www.itu.int/ITU-
and 
D/projects/ITU_EC_ACP/hipssa/docs/SA4docs/data%20protection.pdf. 

on  Cyber  Security 

(SADC).  See, 

respectively, 

188 Inter alia, through the Policy and Regulation Initiative for Digital Africa (PRIDA), see information 
https://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/en/projects/policy-and-regulation-initiative-digital-africa-
at: 
prida. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                 
  
builds on the work of the EU-AU Digital Economy Task Force within the context 
of the New Africa-Europe Digital Economy Partnership189. It is also in furtherance 
of  such  objectives  that  the  scope  of  the  Commission’s  partnership  instrument 
‘Enhanced  Data  Protection  and  Data  Flows’  has  been  extended  to  include  Africa. 
The  project  will  be  mobilised  to  support  African  countries  that  intend  to  develop 
modern data protection frameworks or that wish to strengthen the capacity of their 
regulatory  authorities,  through  training,  knowledge  sharing  and  exchange  of  best 
practices.  

Finally,  while  promoting  convergence  of  data  protection  standards  at  international 
level,  as  a  way  to  facilitate  data  flows  and  thus  trade,  the  Commission  is  also 
determined  to  tackle  digital  protectionism,  as  recently  highlighted  in  the  Data 
Strategy.190 To that end, it has developed specific provisions on data flows and data 
protection  in  trade  agreements  which  it  systematically  tables  in  its  bilateral  –  most 
recently  with  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  the  UK  –  and  multilateral  negotiations 
such  as  the  current  WTO  e-commerce  talks.  These  horizontal  provisions  rule  out 
unjustified  restrictions,  such  as  forced  data  localisation  requirements,  while 
preserving the regulatory autonomy of the parties to protect the fundamental right to 
data protection.  

Whereas  dialogues  on  data  protection  and  trade  negotiations  must  follow  separate 
tracks,  they  can  complement  each  other.  In  fact,  convergence,  based  on  high 
standards and backed-up by effective enforcement, provides the strongest foundation 
for  the  exchange  of  personal  data,  something  that  is  increasingly  recognised  by  our 
international  partners.  Given  that  companies  more  and  more  operate  across  borders 
and  prefer  to  apply  similar  sets  of  rules  in  all  their  business  operations  worldwide, 
such  convergence  helps  creating  an  environment  conducive  to  direct  investment, 
facilitating  trade  and  improving  trust  between  commercial  partners.  Synergies 
between  trade  and  data  protection  instruments  should  thus  be  further  explored  to 
ensure  free  and  safe  international  data  flows  that  are  essential  for  the  business 
operations, competitiveness and growth of European companies, including SMEs, in 
our increasingly digitalised economy. 

189  See  Joint  Communication  of  the  European  Commission  and  the  High  Representative  for  Foreign 
Affairs  and  Security  Policy  ‘Towards  a  comprehensive  strategy  for  Africa’  (available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/system/files/communication-eu-africa-strategy-join-
2020-4-final_en.pdf); Digital Economy Task Force, New Africa-Europe Digital Economy Partnership: 
Accelerating the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (available at: https://www.africa-
eu-partnership.org/sites/default/files/documents/finaldetfreportpdf.pdf). 
190  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-european-strategy-data-19feb2020_en.pdf, 
p. 23.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX I – Clauses for facultative specifications by national legislation 

Subject 

Scope 

Specifications for legal 
obligations and public task 

Adapting the application of provisions 
with regard to the processing for 
compliance with a legal obligation or a 
public task, including for specific 
processing situations under Chapter IX 

GDPR articles 

Article 6(2) and 
6(3) 

Age limit for consent in 
relation to information 
society services 

Processing of special 
categories of data 

Derogation from information 
requirements 

Automated individual 
decision-making 

Restrictions of data subject 
rights 

Consultation and 
authorisation requirement 

Designation of a data 
protection officer in 
additional cases 

Limitations of transfers 

Complaints and court actions 
of organisations in their own 
right 

Determination of the minimum age 
between 13 and 16 years 

Article 8(1) 

 Maintaining or introducing further 
conditions, including limitations, for 
the processing of genetic data, 
biometric data or data concerning 
health. 

Obtaining or disclosure expressly laid 
down by law or for professional 
secrecy regulated by law 

Authorisation for automated decision-
making in derogation from the general 
prohibition 

Restrictions from Articles 12 to 22, 
Article 34 and corresponding 
provisions in Article 5, when necessary 
and proportionate to safeguard 
exhaustively listed important 
objectives  

Requirement for controllers to consult 
or obtain authorisation from the data 
protection authority for processing for 
a task in the public interest 

Designation of a data protection officer 
in cases other than the ones in 
paragraph 1 of Article 37 

 Limitation of transfers of specific 
categories of personal data 

Authorisation of privacy organisations 
to lodge complaints and court actions 
independently from a mandate by data 
subjects 

Article 9(4) 

Article 14(5)(c) 
and (d) 

Article 22(2)(b) 

Article 23(1) 

Article 36(5) 

Article 37(4) 

Article 49(5) 

Article 80(2) 

Access to official documents  Reconciliation of public access to 

Article 86 

official documents with the right to the 
protection of personal data 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
Processing of the national 
identification number 

Specific conditions for the processing 
of the national identification number 

Processing in the 
employment context 

More specific rules for processing 
employees’ personal data 

Derogations for processing 
for archiving in the public 
interest, research or 
statistical purposes 

Derogations from specified data 
subject rights in so far as such rights 
are likely to render impossible or 
seriously impair the achievement of 
specific purposes 

Article 87 

Article 88 

Article 89(2) and 
(3)  

 Reconciliation of data 
protection with obligations 
of secrecy 

Specific rules on investigative powers 
of data protection authorities in relation 
to controllers or processors subject to 
obligations of professional secrecy  

Article 90 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II – Overview of the resources of data protection authorities 

The  table  below  presents  an  overview  of  the  resources  (staff  and  budget)  of  data 
protection authorities per EU/EEA Member State191. 

When comparing the figures between Member States, it is important to bear in mind 
that authorities may have tasks assigned to them beyond those under the GDPR, and 
that  these  may  vary  between  Member  States.  The  ratio  of  staff  employed  by  the 
authorities to one million inhabitants and the ratio of the budget of the authorities to 
one  million  euro  of  GDP  are  only  included  to  provide  additional  elements  of 
comparison  among  Member  States  of  similar  size  and  should  not  be  looked  at  in 
isolation.  The  absolute  figures,  ratios  and  evolution  over  the  past  years  should  be 
considered together when assessing the resources of a given authority.  

STAFF (Full Time Equivalents) 

BUDGET (EUR) 

2019 

Forecast 
2020 

% 
growth 
2016-
2019 

% growth 
2016-
2020 
(forecast) 

Staff per 
million 
inhabitants  
(2019) 

2019 

Forecast 
2020 

% 
growth 
2016-
2019 

% growth 
2016- 
2020 
(forecast) 

Budget per 
million EUR 
of GDP 
(2019) 

34 
59 
60 
39 
24 
101 
66 
16 
45 
215 
888 
33 
104 
17 
140 
170 
19 
46 
43 
13 
179 
49 
238 
25 
39 
49 
47 
170 
87 
2.966 

34 
65 
60 
60 
22 
109 
63 
18 
55 
225 
1002 
46 
117 
17 
176 
170 
31 
52 
48 
15 
188 
58 
260 
27 
47 
51 
49 
220 
87 
3.372 

48% 
9% 
-14% 
39% 
NA 
0% 
106% 
-11% 
114% 
9% 
52% 
-15% 
42% 
143% 
169% 
40% 
-10% 
-8% 
126% 
30% 
145% 
2% 
54% 
-4% 
-3% 
20% 
42% 
13% 
81% 
42% 

48% 
20% 
-14% 
114% 
NA 
8% 
97% 
0% 
162% 
14% 
72% 
18% 
60% 
143% 
238% 
40% 
48% 
4% 
153% 
50% 
158% 
21% 
68% 
4% 
18% 
24% 
48% 
47% 
81% 
62% 

2.282.000 
8.197.400 
1.446.956 
1.157.300 
503.855 
6.541.288 
5.610.128 
750.331 
3.500.000 
18.506.734 
76.599.800 
2.849.000 
3.505.152 
2.272.490 
15.200.000 
29.127.273 
640.998 
1.482.000 
5.442.416 
480.000 
18.600.000 
5.708.950 
7.506.345 
2.152.000 
1.103.388 
1.731.419 
2.242.236 
15.187.680 
8.800.000 

2.282.000 
3,8 
8.962.200 
5,2 
1.446.956 
8,6 
1.405.000 
9,6 
NA 
27,4 
6.720.533 
9,5 
5.623.114 
11,4 
750.331 
12,1 
4.500.000 
8,2 
20.143.889 
3,2 
85.837.500 
10,7 
3.101.000 
3,1 
4.437.576 
10,6 
2.294.104 
47,6 
16.900.000 
28,5 
30.127.273 
2,8 
1.218.978 
9,9 
1.581.000 
16,5 
6.691.563 
70,0 
550.000 
26,3 
18.600.000 
10,4 
6.580.660 
9,2 
9.413.381 
6,3 
2.385.000 
2,4 
1.304.813 
2,0 
1.859.514 
9,0 
2.266.485 
22,6 
16.500.000 
3,6 
8,5 
10.300.000 
6,6  249.127.139  273.782.870 

29% 
1% 
24% 
57% 
114% 
10% 
101% 
7% 
94% 
-2% 
48% 
38% 
102% 
167% 
223% 
46% 
4% 
40% 
165% 
41% 
130% 
27% 
66% 
67% 
3% 
47% 
68% 
8% 
96% 
49% 

29% 
10% 
24% 
91% 
NA 
13% 
101% 
7% 
150% 
7% 
66% 
50% 
155% 
170% 
260% 
51% 
98% 
49% 
226% 
62% 
130% 
46% 
108% 
86% 
22% 
58% 
70% 
17% 
129% 
64% 

5,7 
17,3 
23,8 
21,5 
23,0 
29,7 
18,0 
26,8 
14,6 
7,7 
22,3 
15,2 
24,4 
105,2 
43,8 
16,3 
21,0 
30,6 
85,7 
36,3 
22,9 
15,9 
14,2 
10,1 
4,9 
18,4 
46,7 
12,2 
18,5 
17,4 

EU/EEA 
Member 
States 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
TOTAL 

Source of raw figures: contribution from the Board. Calculations from the Commission.  

191 Except for Liechtenstein. 

52