header-logo header-logo

05 February 2016 / Ben Fielding
Issue: 7685 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

No port in a storm

Ben Fielding examines the implications of the end of Safe Harbor

For the past 15 years, the “Safe Harbor” agreement between the EU and US has allowed US-based companies and organisations to meet the European Commission’s “adequacy” standards and to legally transfer data from the EU to US, ensuring compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive). However, last month, the European Court of Justice ruled the agreement was invalid as it did not sufficiently protect the privacy of EU citizens.

The decision, along with the ongoing legislative process for the passing of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), marks the beginning of a new era in data protection regulation. With the end of Safe Harbor, which was used by some 4,400 companies, many international companies are nervous about the implications of this on how they do business.

Why did it end?

Safe Harbor was designed to meet the adequacy requirements which arose as a result of the Data Protection Directive, which in turn was passed to protect data privacy and ensure that there are safeguards for processing of personal data.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll