The Framework Decision should soon be replaced (?) by a Directive on the protection of data in law enforcement, currently under EU legislative procedure. Pending agreement on the final text of this directive, EU legislation on the “transfer” of repressive data to the NASs (in the EU, the US and beyond) will remain unclear. 51.It is important to keep in mind that the transfer of personal data outside the EU can take place without an adequacy decision, but requires appropriate alternative legal safeguards, such as. B legally binding agreements between public bodies, standard contractual clauses, binding internal rules, codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms. The agreement provides for a series of protection measures for personal data when exchanged between police and criminal justice services, including: thank you for your invitation to participate in the meeting of the LibE Committee from 14 to 15 September 2015 to inform honourable Members of the state of play of the EU-US Data Protection Agreement in the event of the exchange of personal data for purposes repressive (framework agreement). I have asked my current Director General, Ms Paraskevi Michou, to do so. Edward Snowden enabled the world to address the pressing issues of state surveillance, the role of private actors in this process, and the perception and protection of privacy in a democratic society. In the EU-US context, this has led to legal challenges and negotiations such as the Privacy Shield and the Umbrella agreement. 65. Professor Mitsilegas told us that the “main advance” achieved by the framework agreement was to “bring EU law into the existing EU-US mutual legal assistance agreement”.
He said that this agreement was concluded shortly after the 11th and that it contained an article (Article 9) “which states that the general differences between the data protection systems between the United States and the EU should not prevent the exchange of personal data. The framework agreement takes a step forward, as the United States had to take a number of additional security measures in order for this transfer to take place. 67 The third paragraph is also mysterious. It provides that, if there are other agreements between the EU and the US or between the US and an EU Member State, the Framework Agreement applies (i.e. which refer to the transfer of data for law enforcement purposes and which provide for a review of their functioning, these latest revisions, as we have just seen, are summarised. limited and largely completed – verifications in accordance with Article 23. This could be the case, for example, with the 2003 EU-US MLAT, the EU-US PNR agreement, as well as all sorts of agreements between the US and EU Member States. Below we give general information on the negotiations on the agreement and the analysis of the current state of play, including our reflection on the fate of the data protection agreements between the EU and the US after the recent US presidential elections. This is not the place to discuss in detail the agreements and agreements relating to the exchange of data between asNs. Suffice it to say that in addition to the well-known treaty “UKUSA”, which has evolved into a treaty in which Australia, Canada and New Zealand are also parties (the so-called “5EYES” club), there are many other “clubs” of countries that exchange data between their NSAs with members of the EU and/or the United States, In particular: I am also pleased to provide you with the text of the draft agreement as initialled, the European Parliament in accordance with Article 218(10) TFEU. At this stage, the text is still an internal document and I would like you to be able to deal with it in this way in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation between the institutions. In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, EPIC recommended changes to the Remedies Act to ensure meaningful protection of data collected about non-U.S. Americans.