WordPress + Bootstrap

So there we have it. Data protection, once the preserve of tragic anoraks with too much time on their hands, has now firmly taken up its place as a glittering star within the European legal firmament. For who now, in the wake of the Schrems judgment, can doubt the global political and economic significance of the data protection regime, as embodied first and foremost in EU Directive 95/46/EC.

But let us begin by examining why the Schrems judgment in particular has launched data protection into the legal stratosphere. Well let’s start with the fact that it is not every day that a judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union effectively finds that a world super-power has breached fundamental human rights by engaging in a campaign of mass surveillance within its own borders (see paras. 90-98). Then there’s the realisation that the Court has been prepared to deploy those findings so as to attack the validity of a European Commission decision which has shaped the approach which businesses within the EU and the US have taken to EU-US data sharing for the past fifteen years (see para. 104). Then it starts to sink in that the Court’s conclusion that that decision is invalid is inevitably going to destabilise data-sharing arrangements adopted by businesses across the EU, not to mention the US. So what starts as a hugely politically significant judgment turns into a judgment with vast commercial implications (and I am not just talking about the Facebooks of this world because it is clear that the judgment affects all business which transfer data into the US). What is all the more astonishing about the judgment is that it represents a remarkable willingness on the part of the Court to usurp an ongoing political process which is itself designed to achieve a consensus on lawful EU-US data sharing (see further the European Commission’s continuing efforts to negotiate with the US authorities on how to address deficiencies in the Safe Harbour regime).

But then again should any of this really come as any surprise? After all, this is not the first time that the Court has boldly used EU data protection legislation as a means of reshaping key socio-political paradigms. First, it was the internet which was subject to a substantial sea-change as a result of the Court’s recognition that a right to be forgotten could be asserted against search engines (as in Google Spain). Then we saw the Court using data protection legislation in effect so as to inhibit EU Member State surveillance programmes (as in Digital Rights Ireland). Now it is the wider corporate world which is feeling the full force of the behemoth that is EU data protection legislation as data-sharing arrangements across the EU-US piste potentially unravel in the face of the Court’s judgment (see further the ICO’s recent statement on the judgment and its implications for businesses here).

The important question which has yet to be answered is whether the Court’s seemingly relentless march to affirm the primacy of data privacy rights within and indeed beyond the borders of the EU may ultimately itself produce wholly disproportionate and indeed politically untenable results. However, one thing is for sure: the data protection super nova will continue to attract our gaze for some time to come.

Anya Proops

To no-one’s very great surprise following the Opinion of AG Bot, the CJEU has today declared the Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision invalid in Case C-362/14 Schrems, with all the consternation that that causes to inter-state trade between the US and the EU.

Fuller commentary when the judgment is available later but it tops off a bad week for data controllers.

Christopher Knight

Now the immediate dust has settled on last weeks’ judgments of the CJEU in Bara and in Weltimmo it is perhaps briefly revisiting both to note some of the real issues and questions which arise. Answers are harder to come by, but the theme is of a rigid approach by the Court to Directive 95/46/EC which squeezes data controllers until the regulatory pips squeak. The impact of both judgments, not to mention the forthcoming Schrems, could be really significant and, frankly, counter-productive in terms of encouraging the free movement of goods and services. Free movement of data is not a Treaty right, and there are obvious needs to place limits and protections on personal data, but whether the CJEU is adopting an approach which gives businesses sufficient room for practical manoeuvre is another matter.

Some thoughts then on a re-reading of both judgments:

Bara

• Although the context was transfers between public authorities, the principle is not so limited. Any transfer of data to a third party which does not already have express consent will be at risk of unfair processing.
• Just because the two parties to the transfer agree it, and may be obliged to do it (contractually, say), that does not mean the data subject has approved it. Because both making and taking the transfer are acts of processing both data controllers need to have notified the data subject. That is onerous and easy to overlook.
• Not only does the data subject need to have agreed the transfer, they need to know why the transfer is happening (i.e. the purpose). This is much more information being provided to the data subject than one usually sees.
• None of this is any different from the principle adopted in Optical Express; if someone fills in a travel survey with Thomas Cook and aren’t told that their data will be sold to another company who will send them laser eye surgery texts, how can they make an informed choice about what they want to object to? This is essentially the point Bara makes.
• But does anyone actually send DP notices to data subjects? Not, one suspects, very many. Certainly not as many as should do so.
• That also plays into compliance with the third and fourth data protection principles. If your data isn’t up to date, you cannot properly notify the data subjects (DPP4). If you have harvested and kept excessive amounts of data, you have to spend an unnecessary amount of time and money on notifications (DPP3).

Weltimmo

• Weltimmo has a more obvious immediate impact. You don’t get to situate yourself in one (doubtless the most regulatorily convenient) jurisdiction and ignore the regulators in all other Member States if you are targeting your online business to those other States. They can all come after you, and even if they can’t, they can get your home regulator to do so.
• This is a major move away from a one-stop shop system of DP regulation, whilst implying a pan-European consistency that isn’t really there on the ground. The variations in the application of Google Spain is a good example of just how far apart the national regulators can be.
• On any interpretation of the judgment, the outcome is not one which multi-national companies will have expected or wanted. Major online businesses face the prospect of being subject in every detail to regulators of every Member State. Nor can they ignore judgments in cases against them in more tangential parts of the business empire because under the Brussels I regime a civil judgment in one Member State is enforceable in any other.
• How one gets around Weltimmo is going to be tricky to work out. Will it be enough to have a website in English targeting English customers, but not to have any physical presence in England? What about no employees but an English bank account? Essentially, are the factors listed by the CJEU cumulative or distinct (given the need for only a “minimal” activity)?
• Private international lawyers will struggle to classify Article 4 slightly. Is it a jurisdiction issue or a choice of law issue? The CJEU states a conclusion in terms of an applicable law, whilst considering factors which are classically jurisdictional. In reality, it is probably both. The question of where an establishment is to be located is a jurisdictional one, although which law applies to that issue is probably an odd combination of the lex fori and sui generis European concepts as set out in Weltimmo. But once establishment has been, well, established, then that determines the choice of law: it is the law of the place of the establishment. It is just that there may be more than one establishment (i.e. at least Slovakia and Hungary) and therefore more than one applicable law. This is not very doctrinally coherent, particularly when one moves to trying to work out the jurisdictional competence of a court, and then the applicable law, of a private claim for breach of the implementing legislation. How are they meant to match up? Indeed, are they? Is Article 4 entirely divorced from Brussels I? (It might be for the actions of regulators, which would be engaging in administrative activities and outside the scope of Brussels I, but Article 4 applies to actions taken by the data subject too. Is it meant to be a self-contained code? Unclear.)

The fact that answers do not readily appear to all of these issues may itself be a troubling indicator of a lack of wider and/or deeper thought by the CJEU as to how its judgments will actually work in practice. Doubtless some will be worked through in time. But much of this is far too important to real people doing real things to be left to iron itself out over the next five years. Still waters may run deep, but it is the murky ones you drown in.

Christopher Knight

Former rock ‘n’ roll star Liam Gallagher and former pop star Nicole Appleton were married with children and seemed rock steady as a couple but sadly are now getting divorced and left wondering “where did it all go wrong?”  Whatever, some might say, stop crying your heart out about water under the bridge and just roll with it – this is a serious blog whose readers would never ever expect to find stories about celebrity gossip, still less a list of Oasis and All Saints song titles masquerading as a post about information law.

But don’t go away, because the judgment of of Mostyn J in Appleton v Gallagher [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam) is an interesting one about the very important issue of what the press can report about private court proceedings.  Little by little, closed family proceedings are opening up: changes to the Family Procedure Rules made in 2009 permitted journalists to attend private court hearings in the Family Division.  The court can make an order excluding them, but only after considering lesser measures such as a reporting restriction order.

In the present case, journalists from the Sun and other newspapers (possibly including the Hindu Times, the judgment does not say) wanted to attend and report on Mr Gallagher and Ms Appleton’s ancillary relief proceedings; Mr G and Ms A wanted to have the press excluded.  For procedural reasons it fell to Mostyn J to decide whether reporting restrictions should be imposed before a separate judge decided whether the press should be excluded altogether.

Confused?  According to Mostyn J at [6], it is an understatement to say that the law in this area is a mess.

As the judge said at at [9], although section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 explicitly provides that the reporting of proceedings held in private (except for those which wholly or mainly concern children) is not a contempt of court, such reporting is nonetheless prohibited as a result the implied undertaking that attaches to disclosed information.  In the context of private ancillary relief proceedings where there is an obligation to make full and frank disclosure of all financial information that goes far wider than the duty of disclosure in an ordinary civil dispute, the courts have been particularly strict in enforcing this.  As stated by Thorpe LJ in Clibbery v Allen (No 2)[2002] EWCA Civ45, “all the evidence (whether written, oral or disclosed documents) and all the pronouncements of the court are prohibited from reporting and from ulterior use unless derived from any part of the proceedings conducted in open court or otherwise released by the judge.”

The submission on behalf of the press (described by Mostyn J as “very bold”) was that this position is now different as a result of the 2009 rule change.  Mostyn J rejected this saying the purpose of this “was to enable the world to understand how children proceedings, especially public law care proceedings, were conducted”, and referred to what was said in Re Child X (Residence & Contact – Rights of Media Attendance) [2009] EWHC 1728 (Fam) about it enabling the media to exercise a role as “watchdog” on the part of the public at large.  It was not, however, “intended to abrogate [the] core privacy provided by the implied undertaking and the hearing of the proceedings in chambers”, a privacy which he said has been “maintained and endorsed” by Parliament.

In the alternative, the judge said that even if the matter was one of an ordinary balancing exercise, this came down in favour of not allowing reporting, highlighting: (a) the fact that neither party had sought to “yoke the press to his or her cause” or spoken about the divorce and (b) press comments thus far had been limited and there had not been extensive inaccurate speculation.

Some might say [you’ve done this one already – Ed] this judgment will surely be overtaken soon by a comprehensive reconsideration of the law by the Court of Appeal, something urged by Mostyn J at the conclusion of his judgment when he granted permission to appeal.  As such, it remains to be seen whether this judgment will live forever or just slide away [That’s enough – Ed.].

Paul Greatorex

Back in July I posted on the Opinion of the AG in Case C-201/14 Bara v Presedintele Casei Nationala de Asigurari de Sanatate and the CJEU has now handed down its judgment, happily for me in English. The context is that people deriving their income from independent activities were called to pay their contributions to the Romanian National Fund for health insurance, following a tax notice issued by the Romanian health insurance fund. However, that tax notice was calculated on the basis of data on income provided National Tax Administration Agency under an internal administrative protocol. The complaint was that the transfer by the Tax Agency to the Health Insurance Fund of personal data, particularly related to income, was in breach of Directive 95/46/EC because no consent had been provided to the transfer, the data subjects had not been informed of the transfer and the transfer was not for the same purpose as the data was originally supplied.

The CJEU has dealt with the matter in pretty unambiguous terms. Such data sharing was a breach of Article 6 of the Directive, which requires processing to be fair and lawful, because data subjects were not informed of the transfer to another public body or the purpose for the transfer: at [34]. It was a breach of Article 10, which requires the data subject to be provided with information concerning the identity of the controller and the purposes of processing, because no such information had been provided, and the derogations in Article 13 had to be done through legislative measures, whilst the Romanian public bodies simply did it by way of a protocol: at [38] and [41]. Moreover, it was a breach of Article 11, which requires a controller who has not obtained the data from the subject itself to inform the data subject of its identity and the purposes of processing, because neither of the public authorities had told data subjects anything at all: at [43].

All in all, your mother was wrong. Do not share things. Or at least, do not share personal data without providing very clear information to the data subject about what is happening and why. It doesn’t matter if you are a public authority. Go to bed without any supper.

Christopher Knight