BETA


2018/2979(RSP) Resolution on the adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan

Progress: Procedure completed

Legal Basis:
RoP 132-p2

Events

2019/06/12
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2018/12/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2018/12/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 516 votes to 26 with 11 abstentions a resolution tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan.

Recalling that the EU and Japan launched discussions in January 2017 to facilitate personal data transfers for commercial purposes by means of the first ever ‘mutual adequacy finding’, Parliament noted the detailed analysis provided by the Commission in its draft adequacy implementing decision in relation to the safeguards applicable to the processing of data by commercial operators as well as to access to data by Japanese public authorities, in particular in the area of law enforcement and national security. It pointed out that Japan is also preparing the recognition of the level of protection of personal data transferred from Japan to the EU pursuant to its amended Act on Protection of Personal Information (APPI), which would result in the first ever ‘two-way’ adequacy finding worldwide leading to the creation of the world’s largest area of free and safe data flows.

Parliament considered that, following the adoption of the amendments on the APPI, which entered into force in 30 May 2017, and of the GDPR in 2016, the Japanese and EU data protection systems share a high degree of convergence in terms of principles, safeguards and individual rights, as well as oversight and enforcement mechanisms. It highlighted the creation of an independent supervisory authority, the Personal Information Protection Commission (PPC), through the amended APPI.

However, Members pointed to the concerns expressed by the European Data Protection Board in its opinion of 5 December 2018, such as the protection of personal data transferred from the EU to Japan throughout their life cycle. They also highlighted several aspects of the draft decision that require further clarification, or for which concerns remain.

Clarifications required:

Parliament noted 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’. Whilst noting also that this approach would apply in very limited situations, it urged the Commission to assess whether this harm-based approach is compatible with the EU approach under which all processing of personal data falls within the scope of data protection law. Parliament felt further in-depth clarifications were needed as regards direct marketing , given the lack of specific provisions in the APPI, in order to demonstrate the Japanese equivalent level of personal data protection. As regards automated decision-making and profiling , Parliament noted that in contrast to EU law, neither the APPI nor the PPC Guidelines contain legal provisions and that there is no comprehensive overall legal framework with substantial and strong protections against automated decision-making and profiling. It called on the Commission to demonstrate how this is addressed in the Japanese data protection framework in such a way as to ensure an equivalent level of protection, an issue it felt was especially relevant given the recent Facebook/Cambridge Analytica profiling cases. Being aware of media reports about the Japanese Directorate for Signals Intelligence’s indiscriminate mass surveillance , which is not even mentioned in the draft implementing decision, Parliament called on the Commission to provide more information and stated that it was seriously worried that this mass surveillance will not stand the test of the criteria established by the European Court of Justice in the Schrems judgment (Case C-362/14).

Conclusions: Members asked the Commission to provide further evidence and explanation regarding the above-mentioned matters, including those identified by the European Data Protection Board in its opinion of 5 December 2018, in order to demonstrate that the Japanese data protection legal framework ensures an adequate level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that of the European data protection legal framework.

Lastly, the resolution stressed the importance of this adequacy decision as a precedent for future partnerships with other countries that have adopted modern data protection laws, stating that the decision could send out a strong signal to countries around the world that convergence with the EU’s high data protection standards offers very tangible results.

Documents
2018/12/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2018/12/12
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
2018/12/11
   EP - Debate in Parliament

Documents

Votes

B8-0561/2018 - Résolution 13/12/2018 12:24:39.000

2018/12/13 Outcome: +: 516, -: 26, 0: 11
DE FR IT ES PL GB RO BE AT PT BG NL CZ HU SK FI HR DK LT SE EL LU EE SI IE MT LV CY
Total
75
61
49
41
37
51
23
17
17
17
13
19
15
13
11
10
10
9
8
14
7
6
6
6
6
6
4
1
icon: PPE PPE
166

United Kingdom PPE

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Greece PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

3

Latvia PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
147

Belgium S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

2

Hungary S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Denmark S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

1

Greece S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
51

Romania ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

2

Finland ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Sweden ECR

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
52

Germany ALDE

2

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Bulgaria ALDE

3

Croatia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
39

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

Italy GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3
icon: ENF ENF
23

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Italy ENF

2

Poland ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

2
icon: NI NI
8

Germany NI

2

France NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Poland NI

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2018-0561&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2018-0561_EN.html
docs/1/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0529
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0529_EN.html
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 132-p2
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 123-p2
activities
  • date: 2018-12-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181211&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2018-12-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0529 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0529/2018 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
    docs
    • date: 2018-12-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2018-0561&language=EN title: B8-0561/2018 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2019-06-12T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=31986&j=0&l=en title: SP(2019)355 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
    events
    • date: 2018-12-11T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181211&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2018-12-13T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=31986&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2018-12-13T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0529 title: T8-0529/2018 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 516 votes to 26 with 11 abstentions a resolution tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan. Recalling that the EU and Japan launched discussions in January 2017 to facilitate personal data transfers for commercial purposes by means of the first ever ‘mutual adequacy finding’, Parliament noted the detailed analysis provided by the Commission in its draft adequacy implementing decision in relation to the safeguards applicable to the processing of data by commercial operators as well as to access to data by Japanese public authorities, in particular in the area of law enforcement and national security. It pointed out that Japan is also preparing the recognition of the level of protection of personal data transferred from Japan to the EU pursuant to its amended Act on Protection of Personal Information (APPI), which would result in the first ever ‘two-way’ adequacy finding worldwide leading to the creation of the world’s largest area of free and safe data flows. Parliament considered that, following the adoption of the amendments on the APPI, which entered into force in 30 May 2017, and of the GDPR in 2016, the Japanese and EU data protection systems share a high degree of convergence in terms of principles, safeguards and individual rights, as well as oversight and enforcement mechanisms. It highlighted the creation of an independent supervisory authority, the Personal Information Protection Commission (PPC), through the amended APPI. However, Members pointed to the concerns expressed by the European Data Protection Board in its opinion of 5 December 2018, such as the protection of personal data transferred from the EU to Japan throughout their life cycle. They also highlighted several aspects of the draft decision that require further clarification, or for which concerns remain. Clarifications required: Parliament noted 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’. Whilst noting also that this approach would apply in very limited situations, it urged the Commission to assess whether this harm-based approach is compatible with the EU approach under which all processing of personal data falls within the scope of data protection law. Parliament felt further in-depth clarifications were needed as regards direct marketing , given the lack of specific provisions in the APPI, in order to demonstrate the Japanese equivalent level of personal data protection. As regards automated decision-making and profiling , Parliament noted that in contrast to EU law, neither the APPI nor the PPC Guidelines contain legal provisions and that there is no comprehensive overall legal framework with substantial and strong protections against automated decision-making and profiling. It called on the Commission to demonstrate how this is addressed in the Japanese data protection framework in such a way as to ensure an equivalent level of protection, an issue it felt was especially relevant given the recent Facebook/Cambridge Analytica profiling cases. Being aware of media reports about the Japanese Directorate for Signals Intelligence’s indiscriminate mass surveillance , which is not even mentioned in the draft implementing decision, Parliament called on the Commission to provide more information and stated that it was seriously worried that this mass surveillance will not stand the test of the criteria established by the European Court of Justice in the Schrems judgment (Case C-362/14). Conclusions: Members asked the Commission to provide further evidence and explanation regarding the above-mentioned matters, including those identified by the European Data Protection Board in its opinion of 5 December 2018, in order to demonstrate that the Japanese data protection legal framework ensures an adequate level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that of the European data protection legal framework. Lastly, the resolution stressed the importance of this adequacy decision as a precedent for future partnerships with other countries that have adopted modern data protection laws, stating that the decision could send out a strong signal to countries around the world that convergence with the EU’s high data protection standards offers very tangible results.
    • date: 2018-12-13T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
      procedure/subject
      Old
      • 1.20.09 Protection of privacy and data protection
      New
      1.20.09
      Protection of privacy and data protection
      procedure/title
      Old
      Adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan
      New
      Resolution on the adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan
      activities/0/docs
      • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181211&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
      activities/0/type
      Old
      Debate scheduled
      New
      Debate in Parliament
      activities/1
      date
      2018-12-13T00:00:00
      docs
      url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0529 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0529/2018
      body
      EP
      type
      Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
      procedure/stage_reached
      Old
      Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
      New
      Procedure completed
      activities/0/type
      Old
      Debate in plenary scheduled
      New
      Debate scheduled
      activities
      • date: 2018-12-11T00:00:00 body: EP type: Debate in plenary scheduled
      committees
        links
        other
          procedure
          legal_basis
          Rules of Procedure EP 123-p2
          reference
          2018/2979(RSP)
          title
          Adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan
          geographical_area
          Japan
          stage_reached
          Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
          subtype
          Resolution on statement
          type
          RSP - Resolutions on topical subjects
          subject
          1.20.09 Protection of privacy and data protection