10 Amendments of Cornelia ERNST related to 2018/2904(RSP)
Amendment 34 #
Paragraph 11
11. Requests the Commission to providerequest clarifications from independent Japanese experts clearly demonstratingabout the legally binding effect on Japanese business operators of the Supplementary Rules, given that the Commission has considered this necessary in order to ensure an adequate level of protection, as well as the Rules’ enforceable character, i.e. that they can be enforced both by the PPC and by the courts referred to in Annex I to the draft implementing decision;
Amendment 35 #
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that as the additional protections of the Supplementary Rules cover only transfers under adequacy decisions, personal data transferred from the EU pursuant to any other GDPR basis (i.e. Articles 46 to 49) would not benefit from those protections; believes this would create a different level of protection for EU citizens, thus undermining the other mechanisms that can be used to transfer personal data; recalls that in view of the scope of the adequacy decision, some data transfers will be conducted under these other available mechanisms;
Amendment 41 #
Paragraph 14
14. Acknowledges that the additional protections stipulated in the Supplementary Rules are limited to personal data transferred from Europe and therefore do not seem applicable to Japanese personal data or to personal data transferred from other third countries, hence creating practical problems for business operators who have to simultaneously process Japanese and European personal data, forcing them to create dual databases and procedures; invites the Commission to assess whether this dual degree of protection for Japanese and third-country data subjects is in line with the GDPR requirements and the ‘essential equivalence’ standard set by the Court of Justice and; calls on the Commission to assess if this situation might lead to a loophole whereby operators circumvent the obligations laid down in the Supplementary Rules by transferring data via third countries; calls on the Commission, therefore, to address these issues as soon as possible;
Amendment 43 #
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the definition of ‘personal data’ in the APPI excludes data ‘prescribed by cabinet order as having little possibility of harming an individual’s rights and interests considering their utilisation method’; is concerned thaturges the Commission to assess whether this harm-based approach is in clear contradictioncompatible with the EU approach under which all processing of personal data falls within the scope of data protection law;
Amendment 48 #
Paragraph 17
17. Is concerned thatUrges the Commission to assess whether the narrower definition of ‘personal data’ (based on the definition of ‘personal information’) in the APPI might not meet the standard of being ‘essentially equivalent’ to the GDPR and to the case law of the European Court of Justice; questions, therefore,provides for a level of protection that is ‘essentially equivalent’ to EU data protection law; invites the Commission to further clarify the statement in the draft implementing decision that ‘EU data will always fall into the category of “personal data” under the APPI’;
Amendment 56 #
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that regarding onward transfers, althoughInvites the cCombination of the APPI rules and the Supplementary Rules would ensure a level of protection higher than that provided under the APEC CBPRmission to clarify whether, as regards onward transfers, the solution provided in the Supplementary Rules, which consists of requiring prior consent on the part of EU data subjects for approval of onward transfer to a third party in a foreign country, lacks certain essential elements that would enable data subjects to formulate their consent, as it does not expressly define what is covered by the notion of ‘information on the circumstances surrounding the transfer necessary for the [data subject] to make a decision on his/her consent’, in line with Article 13 of the GDPR, such as the third country of destination of the onward transfer; noinvites that in addition, the draft implementing decision does not explaine Commission to further clarify the consequences for the data subject in case of refusal of consent for onward transfer of his or her personal data;
Amendment 63 #
Paragraph 23
23. Regrets thatUrges the Commission to assess whether, as regards effective enforcement of the APPI, the level of possible fines that would be imposed by the penalJapanese authorities is insufficient to ensure effective compliance with the Act, as it does not seem to bend whether it is proportionate, effective or dissuasive in relation to the gravity of the infringement; calls on the Commission to ensure that the level of fines should be aligned with the GDPR;
Amendment 67 #
Paragraph 24
24. Regrets thatUrges the Commission to clarify whether there is ano independent authority overseeing the data processing activities of the law enforcement sector; points out that, since the PPC has no competence over this; notes that the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board has some competences in this field, including reviewing access requests and publishing opinions, but points out that these powers are not legally binding;
Amendment 70 #
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that under the Japanese Act on the Protection of Personal Information held by Administrative Organs (APPIHAO), business operators can also hand data over to law enforcement authorities on a ‘voluntary basis’; points out that this is not foreseen in the GDPR or the Police Directive and is concerned that it might not benvites the Commission to assess whether this is compliant with the standard of being ‘essentially equivalent’ to the GDPR;
Amendment 74 #
Paragraph 27
27. Regrets thatInvites the Commission to clarify whether the document ‘Collection and use of personal information by Japanese public authorities for criminal law enforcement and national security purposes’, which forms part of Annex II to the draft implementing decision, does not have the same legally binding effect as the Supplementary Rulesis legally binding and to pay particular attention to this aspect;