EU-Commission, PM IP/16/1937 of 31/5/2016
The EU Commission together with Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and YouTube have published a Code of Conduct which contains a number of obligations to tackle illegal online hate speech in Europe. By signing this Code the aforementioned IT companies commit to a sustainable internal hate-speech policy which shall lead to a review and deletion of illegal online hate speeches within 24 hours as well as the closing down of illegally used accesses to those communication platforms.
Hamburg Data Protection Agency
After the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the Safe Harbor program is invalid, the European DPAs granted companies a transitory period until February to migrate from the Safe Harbor to other legal tools for their international data transfers, in particular by implementing Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) or the Model Contractual Clauses.
The Hamburg Data Protection Agency (DPA), which effectively takes the lead in the German DPAs' response to Safe Harbour and the Privacy Shield, recently investigated 35 companies. It found significant shortcomings in that respect and has started to fine those for not having appropriate replacements for the Safe Harbor in place after the expiration of the permitted grace period.
The European Commission made public a draft "adequacy decision" of the Commission as well as the texts that will constitute the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield after the Safe-Harbour treaty was found invalid by the European Court of Justice. This includes the Privacy Shield Principles companies have to abide by, as well as written commitments by the U.S. Government (to be published in the U.S. Federal Register) on the enforcement of the arrangement, including assurance on the safeguards and limitations concerning access to data by public authorities.
In a next step a committee composed of representatives of the Member States will be consulted and the EU Data Protection Authorities (Article 29 Working Party) will give their opinion, before a final decision by the College. In the meantime, the U.S. side will make the necessary preparations to put in place the new framework, monitoring mechanisms and the new Ombudsperson mechanism.
ECJ C - 362 / 14
The European Court of Justice has found the Safe-Harbour Agreement between the European Union and the United States to be invalid.
In its decision the court confirms the right and obligation of the national data protection agencies in the EU to probe any transfer of personnel data from the EU to the US. It holds that the EU Commission has no power to restrict the competency of the national data protection agencies in the EU. According to the court the Safe-Harbour rules contain no restrictions of the rights of US agencies to access and process the data. The Safe-Harbour agreement therefore does not prevent violation of basic rights of the affected individuals. It also provides no effective procedures for the individuals to seek legal protection.
OLG Hamburg 7 U 29 / 12
The higher regional court of Hamburg, Germany, recently handed down a judgement that in its essential legal findings could well be adopted by courts across the EU in the future.
The court had to decide a case in which a national newspaper maintained on its website also an online archive containing articles of an older past. The plaintiff requested the deletion of an article in that archive about a closed investigation into a potential criminal offence by him, which could be found by simply typing his name in an online search engine.
Weighing up the newspaper's protection under freedom of information and the plaintiffs right of privacy not to be infinitely associated with a potential crime the investigation into which had been closed by just typing his name into any online search engine the court found that both rights are protected if it is only possible and thereby permitted to find the article about the investigation by undertaking a much more detailed search online by place, date and other circumstances and not just by typing his name.
The policy responsibility for data protection and the sponsorship of the UK Information Commissioner's Office ICO has been transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 17th of September, previously held by the Ministry of Justice. The Information Commissioner commented that it made sense for the ICO to be connected to debates around the digital economy for which the Department for Culture Media and Sport has responsibility.
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has made what appears to be its first "right to be forgotten enforcement action against Google Inc. The ICO issued the notice on 18 August 2015, ordering Google to remove nine links to news stories about an individual’s criminal offence committed almost a decade ago.
Google has 35 days from the date of the enforcement notice to remove the links from its search results when the individual’s name is searched, or, Google will face further enforcement action. Google has the right to appeal to the U.K.’s First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) against the notice but, so far, the company has refused to comment on whether or not it will appeal.
