The ECJ’s ruling Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner has invalidated the EU-US Safe Harbor Agreement. The decision is the third step of the European Court of Justice — after the Digital Ireland and Costeja Gonzales cases — towards the acknowledgment of per- sonal data protection as a fundamental right, pursuant to article 9 of the Treaty of Nice, and marks the rift between EU and US on the fair balance among surveillance systems and privacy laws. After the col- lapse of the Safe Harbor Agreement, binding corporate rules, for multinational organizations or groups of companies, and contract model clauses, in any other case, seem to be the only compliant solutions for overseas transfers of personal data. However, are these measures sufficient to face the improving data flows between the two sides of the Atlantic?
MODEL CONTRACT CLAUSES E CORPORATE BINDING RULES: VALIDE ALTERNATIVE AL SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENT?
RICCIO, Giovanni, Maria;
2015
Abstract
The ECJ’s ruling Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner has invalidated the EU-US Safe Harbor Agreement. The decision is the third step of the European Court of Justice — after the Digital Ireland and Costeja Gonzales cases — towards the acknowledgment of per- sonal data protection as a fundamental right, pursuant to article 9 of the Treaty of Nice, and marks the rift between EU and US on the fair balance among surveillance systems and privacy laws. After the col- lapse of the Safe Harbor Agreement, binding corporate rules, for multinational organizations or groups of companies, and contract model clauses, in any other case, seem to be the only compliant solutions for overseas transfers of personal data. However, are these measures sufficient to face the improving data flows between the two sides of the Atlantic?I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
