“However, there were also concerns prior to the Snowden revelations given that it is a non-binding agreement which lacks compliance by companies and gives no possibility for citizens to enforce their rights”, he added.
Advertisement
He later said in a statement that the decision was a “milestone when it comes to online privacy”.
“It clears up that mass observation abuses our principal rights.” “Reasonable legal redress must be possible”, he said.
Austrian privacy campaigner Max Schrems challenged the Safe Harbour treaty in his fight to expose what information Facebook gave to American intelligence agencies.
“The United States does not and has not engaged in indiscriminate surveillance of anyone, including ordinary European citizens”, the U.S. mission to Brussels said in a statement last week. It was created to provide a streamlined way for United States firms to get data from Europe without breaking its rules.
The decision by the Court does not mean companies have to immediately stop transferring data to the U.S. Rather, national authorities in Europe will be allowed to review individual transfers of data.
Safe Harbour allows USA companies to self-certify that they are carrying out the required steps.
It added the United States was bound to disregard the protective rules laid down by Safe Harbour where they conflict with such requirements. It said that the “safe harbor” deal enables interference by US authorities with fundamental rights and contains no reference either to USA rules to limit any such interference or to effective legal protection against it.
Responding to the French court which asked its opinion, the ECJ in Luxembourg found that the fundamental right to vote can be limited if it is done in a “proportionate” manner.
The judgment said: “The court declares the Safe Harbour decision invalid”.
The case, which cites data Facebook allegedly provides to USA intelligence agencies, has far-reaching implications for tech companies doing business in Europe.
A few of those other options available to businesses are so-called “model clauses” which help them to meet the adequacy standards of European Union privacy laws – something the U.S. data protection regime as a whole fails to do.
Mr Schrems claimed Ireland’s data watchdog had an onus to uncover what information Facebook held on users and ultimately what was being transferred to the USA under Safe Harbour and being accessed through Prism.
It concluded that Ireland’s regulator needed to decide whether Dublin-based Facebook’s EU-to-US transfers should be suspended.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that Thierry Delvigne’s loss of voting rights when convicted was in line with EU law.
The judgment will be sent to the High Court in Dublin where the judge will use it as the basis for deciding on Mr Schrems’s legal challenge for Facebook to be audited.
He fled to Hong Kong where he met journalists to co-ordinate a series of articles that exposed mass surveillance programmes such as the NSA’s Prism and GCHQ’s Tempora, which involve “hoovering up” vast volumes of private communications.
Christian Borggreen, director at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Google, Facebook and Amazon, said the ruling would hit small and medium-sized businesses most.
But the UK Government said it was disappointed and a leading lawyer warned the decision could lead to disruption for thousands of United Kingdom businesses. Facebook data is then transferred to servers in the United States.
“The result… will have critical ramifications for all Irish organizations who exchange information over the Atlantic”.
“This case is not about Facebook”.
Advertisement
The European Court of Justice said Tuesday that France was within its rights to deny a prisoner who had been stripped of his civil rights to keep him from voting.
