While doing so is all well and good, it is critical that you don’t let that deter you from exercising extreme focus on documenting that settlement in a carefully crafted agreement. "It’s human nature to engage in an emotional exhale after reaching an agreement in principle to settle a long-standing or hard-fought dispute. It's a tough lesson to learn the hard way as reported in a recent edition of "The In-House Advisor" blog.
It is very important to keep "thinking and fighting" until the final document is signed. On many occasions both sides tend to relax after the agreement in principle is reached. Typically, either via mediation or just negotiations on their won, the parties reach an "agreement in principle" on the key terms and agree to put the rest of the detail into the final settlement agreement. After a hard fought battle, getting both sides to agree on a resolution that works for both sides can be cast as a victory in most cases. It would be unfortunate if current legal uncertainty, created by the European Commission and the United States government, would continue under a new data transfer deal.Resolving litigation is generally a good thing for the parties. If the new EU-US data transfer framework does not provide for proper protection of users' privacy, the new deal will likely be referred to the CJEU another time and see another clear ruling. The announced new deal is one of the factors that currently cool enforcement actions." While some data protection authorities have taken individual actions based on complaints, we still lack general compliance with the law and proper enforcement. Max Schrems: " It is now two years since the second CJEU judgment. noyb's 101 model complaints on EU-US data transfers have lead to some results in the meantime, as the Austrian, Danish, French, Italian or European data protection authorities have issued decisions that Google Analytics may not be used in the EU anymore. While some gradually switch to providers that do not fall under US surveillance laws, many keep breaking the GDPR, hoping that a new deal will remedy the situation.
While politics are not solving the issues at hand, EU and US businesses struggle with the situation. It seems, the US still supports the idea that non-US persons shouldn't have fundamental rights."ĮU and US businesses continue to break the law. It is astonishing that two democracies that agree on principles like judicial approval of surveillance cannot come to a proper agreement. What I hear is also that these first steps are not solutions, but steps towards a third flawed deal. Now we may see the first steps by the end of the year. Max Schrems, plaintiff in the "Schrems I" and "Schrems II" litigation and chair of : " Originally, we were promised a perfect solution by the end of the year. Instead, the US will introduce even weaker language, that will allow to continue mass surveillance practices as previously rejected by the CJEU. Equally, the US is said to go back on their promise that US mass surveillance will be limited to what is " necessary and proportionate". Instead, rumors are being spread that the US will in fact not provide the hailed "Data Protection Review Court", but at best some form of executive tribunal, similar to previous Privacy Shield Ombudsperson, already rejected by the CJEU. Despite various promises in the original announcement, colorful European fact sheets (PDF) and promises in US black and white fact sheets (link), no further tangible result was published in the past six months. Press Release by the European Commission of.On 25 March 2022, in the wake of the war on Ukraine, US-President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an "agreement in principle" on EU-US data transfers, despite two Court of Justice (CJEU) rulings striking down the previous "Safe Harbor" and "Privacy Shield" agreements. Half a year of political announcements, but no agreement on EU-US data transfers.
0 kommentar(er)
