Search
Contact
31.07.2020 | KPMG Law Insights

Data transfer following the ECJ ruling of July 16, 2020 C-311/18 (“Schrems II”).

On July 16, 2020, the ECJ issued a ruling in the Schrems II case that has far-reaching consequences for international data transfers:

  • The EU – U.S. Privacy Shield is ineffective and can no longer be used for data transfer to the U.S.. There is no grace period.
  • While the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCC”) continue to be effective, the contracting parties must examine whether there are legal regulations in the recipient country that restrict compliance with the SCC and whether, if necessary, an adequate level of data protection can be ensured through supplementary regulations. The same applies to already approved Binding Corporate Rules (“BCR”).
  • The supervisory authorities have the right to prohibit data transfers also on the basis of the SCC, insofar as the regulations made with the SCC are not (or cannot be) complied with in individual cases.

The European Data Protection Board “EDPD/EDSA” announces in its FAQs, as of July 23, 2020, that it will provide guidance on the complementary measures for SCC. These could be legal, technical or organizational measures. For the USA, according to the ECJ’s findings, only measures that technically prevent access by the US authorities without a legality check in accordance with the principles of the GDPR or that give the data subjects the opportunity to seek effective legal protection in the USA should be considered.

Following the EDPD/EDSA, the following recommendation currently exists for dealing with data transfers to third countries:

  1. Data transfer to the U.S. on the basis of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield will not continue. Check whether the data transfer can be switched to another legal basis, e.g. the SCC, or whether there is an exceptional circumstance pursuant to Art. 49 GDPR.
  2. When transferring data to the U.S. and other third countries based on SCCs, data recipients in the third countries must check whether they can comply with SCCs in their country and inform the data exporters in the EU. The same is true for BCR. All data exporters in the EU should therefore immediately write to their data recipients in third countries and ask for appropriate information. No more information needs to be obtained for the USA, as the ECJ ruling already contains all the information.
  3. If the data recipient in the third country declares that it cannot comply with the SCC or does not provide information, both (data exporter and data importer) must check whether the security gap can be closed by supplementary legal, technical or organizational measures and agree on these measures in an amendment agreement to the concluded SCC.
  4. If the data recipient in the third country cannot comply with the SCC, the security gap cannot be closed by supplementary measures and Art. 49 GDPR does not apply, the data must be moved to the EU. If this is not possible, the responsible supervisory authority must be informed.

We are happy to support you, e.g. with the

  • Analysis of your service relationships with data recipients in third countries with regard to any need for adaptation
  • additions to the SCC required as a result
  • Analysis of the legal situation in third countries, as well as for
  • Responding to requests or orders from data protection authorities

We will provide you with further information on the implementation of the ECJ ruling “Schrems II” in third countries, in particular in the USA, in our 2 webinar series, in German together with the experts from KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft and in English together with our lawyer colleagues from Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP in the USA, as well as with our lawyer colleagues from other countries, planned for the end of August 2020.

Explore #more

09.07.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Restructuring with staff reductions: preparation is key

The downsizing or closure of a part of a company often also necessitates staff reductions. Depending on the number of employees affected, the works council…

08.07.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises Finish Finnfoam Group on the acquisition of the Phonotherm business of insolvent BOSIG Baukunststoffe GmbH

KPMG Law advised Finnfoam Group (Salo/Finland) on the acquisition of the business unit “Phonotherm” from BOSIG Baukunststoffe GmbH via the newly founded Warmotech GmbH as…

07.07.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises HEMRO International AG on the acquisition of Xenia Espresso GmbH

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) provided legal advice to HEMRO Group, a global manufacturer of coffee grinders and grinding technologies headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland,…

04.07.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

BGH clarifies the limits of the definition of customer installations

On July 3, 2025, the BGH published the reasons for its ruling of May 13, 2025 (case no. EnVR 83/20) and provided the eagerly awaited…

02.07.2025 | In the media

Guest article by Moritz Püstow on the special fund for infrastructure

The German government wants to invest 500 billion euros in infrastructure and climate neutrality. This creates new business opportunities for the construction industry – but…

01.07.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advised Bosch on the multinational carve-out of the entire product business of Bosch Building Technologies to investor Triton

KPMG Law advises Robert Bosch on the carve-out of the building technologies division’s product business for security and communications technology (Bosch Building Technologies) in more…

27.06.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Hospital restructuring: three steps out of the crisis

Many clinics see their existence threatened in the short or medium term. Other healthcare facilities are also experiencing economic difficulties. Inadequate remuneration structures, staff shortages,…

27.06.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law nominated at the PMN Awards

We are delighted to have been nominated directly in two categories at the PMN Awards 2025. Our “Extended Workbench” project was nominated in the…

25.06.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Business Travel and Assignment in the USA: What you need to know about US immigration

The recent changes in US immigration rules are causing uncertainty worldwide. In particular, since the new US government took office, processes regarding entry into the…

11.06.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Omnibus IV brings some simplifications, especially in product law

The EU Commission proposed the fourth omnibus package on May 21, 2025. Omnibus IV contains simplifications in relation to numerous product law requirements and…

Contact

Dr. Konstantin von Busekist

Managing Partner
Head of Global Compliance Practice
KPMG Law EMA Leader

Tersteegenstraße 19-23
40474 Düsseldorf

Tel.: +49 211 4155597123
kvonbusekist@kpmg-law.com

Sebastian Hoegl, LL.M. (Wellington)

Senior Manager
Lawyer
Specialist lawyer for IT law
LL.M. (Wellington)

Heinrich-von-Stephan-Straße 23
79100 Freiburg im Breisgau

Tel.: +49 761 769999-20
shoegl@kpmg-law.com

Maik Ringel

Senior Manager

Münzgasse 2
04107 Leipzig

Tel.: +49 341 22572563
mringel@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll