The EU has used the threat of vetoing future trade agreements as a whip, but an agreement has yet to be reached. The new judgment is expected to result in a fire in the proceedings, as a new agreement is needed to moderate international trade in services. Since then, in accordance with EU rules on the referral of « prejudice decision » to the Court of Justice, the Irish data protection monitor must « … Examine Mr. Schrems` case « with the utmost care » and … decide whether … the transmission of the personal data of European subscribers to Facebook to the United States should be suspended. » [1] EU regulators have stated that if the ECJ and the US do not negotiate a new system within three months, companies could face complaints from European data protection authorities. On October 29, 2015, a new « Safe Harbour 2.0 » agreement appeared to be close to being concluded. [24] However, CommissionerJourova expects the United States to act next. [25] American NGOs quickly expanded the importance of the decision. [26] In a two-year-old case, brought by Austrian data protection advocate Max Schrems to the EU Supreme Court, the ECJ ruled that the European Commission`s transatlantic data protection agreement, which came into force in 2000, was not valid because it did not adequately protect consumers in the wake of the Snowden revelations.

A safe haven is a provision of a statute or regulation that states that certain behaviours are not contrary to a particular rule. It is usually found in conjunction with a vague, global standard. On the other hand, « dangerous ports » describe behaviours considered to be contrary to the rule. Following a dispute between Austrian data protection advocate Max Schrems, it was decided that US data protection legislation was insufficient and that the agreement needed to be cancelled. If the UK advances its plans to leave the EU, it will have to think about how it will negotiate data transfers to and from the UK and us. The Commission has the power to verify whether a third country provides an adequate level of protection under its domestic law or international commitments. Such a decision has the effect of allowing personal data from the EU and the EEA to be transferred to that third country without the need for enhanced security. The Information Commissioner`s office said that after Brexit, the UK will have to demonstrate the « adequacy » of trade in the EU.

A Privacy Shield equivalent between the United States and the United Kingdom would likely play an important role in determining adequacy. The data protection shield replaces the Safe Harbor Agreement, which was invalidated by the European Court of Justice in October 2015. This followed Edward Snowden`s revelations, which provided evidence of the massive surveillance of private data on European citizens by the US National Security Agency. On 26 July, WP29 issued a statement on the European Commission`s decision on the data protection shield. WP29, while acknowledging the changes made by the Commission and the US authorities to the data protection shield test, stressed that some of the concerns it had expressed in its April opinion remained, for example, that controls on the independence and powers of the Ombudsman could be stricter.