Transatlantic data transfers Image
Guiding the way: Safe Harbor had been the main basis for the legal transfer of data to the US for more than 4,000 European companies. Photo: Enjoylife2/iStock

European companies can only respire a little bit: A US Senate penal has passed the amended Judicial Redress Act on Thursday and thereby cleared the way to a new data transfer agreement. The Judicial Redress Act will extend the privacy rights of US citizens to EU citizens. However, the European data protection authorities have not yet arrived at a consensus on legal data transfers to the US – therefore, it seems like Safe Harbor II is still far off.

It was already in October that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that personal data may no longer be transferred from the EU to the US based on the Safe Harbor Agreement due to lacking US data protection.

Safe Harbor had been the main basis for the legal transfer of data to the US for more than 4,000 European companies. Now, the companies have to use alternative legal instruments. First, they can base their data transfers on standard contractual clauses issued by the European Commission. Second, they can use Corporate Binding Rules for data exchange within the company.

The European data protection authorities have granted the companies a reprieve until the end of January to adapt their data transfers to these alternatives. It is also until the end of January that the authorities want to clarify how the ECJ ruling may affect these specific alternatives. Furthermore, the US and the European Commission have promised to provide a new Safe Harbor agreement until this date.

However, the deadlines will likely not be met. The victims are the companies – they will have to operate in a legal limbo from next week on. Therefore, the European data protection authorities must quickly agree on a common position on the future of Safe Harbor. This position should at least transitionally maintain the standard contractual clauses and the Corporate Binding Rules to allow data transfers to the US. In the medium term, however, new rules and reforms are conceivable and necessary on both sides of the Atlantic.

Furthermore, it is important that Europe takes on a strong, consistent attitude in the matter. Only then the balancing act in the Safe Harbor negotiations with the US can succeed, which is crucial for the future of Europe as a business location. This balancing act consists in nothing less than balancing the European fundamental right to the protection of personal data with the requirements of a globally networked economy.

Contact

The Economic Effects of a Brexit on the UK
IW News, 25 August 2016

Jürgen Matthes and Berthold Busch in European Financial Review The Economic Effects of a Brexit on the UKArrow

The results of a plethora of studies on the likely economic impact of a Brexit on the UK are rather confusing. In this article, IW economists Jürgen Matthes and Berthold Busch challenge the mainstream view and argue that the risks of a Brexit are likely to be underestimated. more

IW-Kurzbericht, No. 50 of 11 August 2016

Markus Demary / Michael Voigtländer Will Brexit dwarf London’s competitiveness as a financial centre?Arrow

The British referendum might be a game changer for financial centres competitiveness. The City of London might lose business after Brexit as the United Kingdom loses access to the European Union’s (EU) single market. But London might stay competitive as a global offshore financial centre as long it is able to attract talented people. However, its ability to attract business by deregulation is limited. This is an opportunity for Frankfurt to become the EU’s leading financial centre. more

IW News, 10 August 2016

Gross domestic product The capital city effectArrow

There is a wide prosperity gap between London and the rest of the UK. The situation is the same in many other EU Member States – with one exception. more