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

14.05.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

BGH on customer installations: Decision orders application in line with the directive

In a ruling dated May 13, 2025, the BGH classified the supply infrastructure in the specific case of a residential complex in Zwickau as a…

13.05.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law expert in Spiegel article on energy policy

Dirk-Henning Meier, Senior Manager in the energy law department at KPMG Law, is quoted in a recent article on energy policy in Der Spiegel.…

13.05.2025 | Career, In the media

azur Karriere Magazin – All AI or what?

Artificial intelligence has long since arrived in law firms and legal departments. But dealing with it is a skill that needs to be learned. Many…

13.05.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Initial experience with the Single-Use Plastics Fund Act: what manufacturers should bear in mind

Beverage cups, foil and plastic cigarette filters litter streets, parks and sidewalks. The cleaning costs are borne by the local authorities. The Disposable Plastics Fund…

07.05.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Termination of fixed-term rental agreements in the case of pre-leasing

In the case of a pre-leasing, the tenancy only begins at a later date, usually the handover date. In such cases, the contracting parties usually…

06.05.2025 | In the media

Wirtschaftswoche honors KPMG Law

KPMG Law was named “TOP Law Firm 2025” in the field of M&A by WirtschaftsWoche. Ian Maywald, Partner at KPMG Law in Munich, was…

06.05.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Social insurance obligation for teachers – transitional rule creates clarity

Teachers and lecturers are often hired on a self-employed basis. This practice makes the German pension insurance fund sit up and take notice. It is…

02.05.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in FINANCE Magazine: How CFOs can save up to 80 percent in the legal department

The cost pressure in companies is increasing – also in legal departments. Two strategies have now become established to save 50 to 80 percent of…

30.04.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law study in the Neue Kämmerer: How does the special fund get into the municipalities?

A special fund of 500 billion euros is to finance investments in infrastructure over the next twelve years. Of this, 100 billion euros are earmarked…

29.04.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Anti-money laundering and transparency register – what will the new government change?

According to the coalition agreement, the future government wants to “resolutely combat” money laundering and financial crime. The coalition partners have announced that legal…

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