French Lawmaker Contests Trans-Atlantic Privacy Accord
A French lawmaker is seeking annulment of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework for trans-Atlantic data transfers, law firm Hogan Lovells noted in a Sept. 8 legal analysis. The request was filed in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by Philippe…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Latombe, a member of the French Parliament and of the country's Data Protection Authority. Latombe's news release said he filed in his personal capacity as a citizen of the EU. The ECJ must first determine whether the request is admissible, because as an individual, Latombe must meet stringent standing requirements, attorney Patrice Navarro wrote. If the court accepts the filing, "the procedure will offer the advantage of speed compared to the prejudicial question procedures used by Maximilian Schrems" in his challenge to former regime Privacy Shield. Latombe argued that: (1) The DPF lacks guarantees of a right to an effective remedy, and the newly created Data Protection Review Court lacks transparency; (2) The accord breaches the minimization and proportionality principles of the general data protection regulation by allowing bulk collection of personal data by U.S. surveillance agencies; and (3) The DPF is available only in English but should be translated into all EU official languages. The ECJ decision, "both in terms of admissibility and substance, promises to wield a major impact," the analysis said. The European Commission paved the way for the DPF by deciding in July that the U.S. now ensures sufficient privacy protections to allow Europeans' personal data to be transferred there (see 2307100015). Schrems said at the time he expected the issue to be back at the ECJ by the beginning of 2024. He didn't immediately comment.