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

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

Constantine Law—Anita Vadgama

Constantine Law—Anita Vadgama

New senior partner hire at consultant-led employment / regulatory law firm

Ward Hadaway—Emma Swann & Jill Donabie

Ward Hadaway—Emma Swann & Jill Donabie

Firm adds two partners to growing education practice

mfg Solicitors—Lauren Collins, Emily Stancer & Sara Southall

mfg Solicitors—Lauren Collins, Emily Stancer & Sara Southall

Trio of newly qualified solicitors strengthens Worcester office law firm

NEWS
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
The treasury has sought to reassure the legal profession over concerns about cost, bureaucracy and independence when the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) takes over regulation of anti-money laundering compliance
One out of two barristers has come under pressure from clients to act unethically, according to the results of this year’s Barristers’ Working Lives survey
The Court of Appeal has held the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was wrong to set aside a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decision on unfair pricing of phenytoin, an epilepsy drug
A flagship employment law reform is due to come into effect on 1 July, extending unfair dismissal rights to employees after six months in their job instead of two years
back-to-top-scroll