<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<CONS.ACT xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://formex.publications.europa.eu/schema/formex-05.59-20170418.xd">
<INFO.CONSLEG CONSLEG.REF="2000D0520" DATE.LAST.MOD="20010425" END="NONE" END.DATE="99999999" PROD.SEQ="000.001.0" START.DATE="20000825" LEG.VAL="DEC"/>
<INFO.PROD PROD.DATE="20010510" PROD.SYSTEM="CONSLEG.NEW" PRODUCER="IS"/>
<CONS.DOC>
   <BIB.INSTANCE>
      <DOCUMENT.REF FILE="test-CONSACT.doc.xml"/>
      <EEA/>
      <DATE ISO="20000825">20000825</DATE>
      <LG.DOC>EN</LG.DOC>
      <PAGE.FIRST>1</PAGE.FIRST>
      <PAGE.SEQ>1</PAGE.SEQ>
      <PAGE.LAST>41</PAGE.LAST>
      <PAGE.TOTAL>41</PAGE.TOTAL>
   </BIB.INSTANCE>
   <FAM.COMP LEG.VAL="DEC">
      <BIB.DATA>
         <BIB.INSTANCE.CONS>
            <DOCUMENT.REF.CONS>
               <COLL>L</COLL>
               <NO.OJ>215</NO.OJ>
               <YEAR>2000</YEAR>
               <LG.OJ>EN</LG.OJ>
               <PAGE.FIRST>7</PAGE.FIRST>
               <PAGE.SEQ>1</PAGE.SEQ>
               <VOLUME.REF>01</VOLUME.REF>
            </DOCUMENT.REF.CONS>
            <EEA/>
            <DATE ISO="20000825">20000825</DATE>
            <LG.DOC>EN</LG.DOC>
            <PAGE.FIRST>7</PAGE.FIRST>
            <PAGE.SEQ>1</PAGE.SEQ>
            <PAGE.LAST>47</PAGE.LAST>
            <PAGE.TOTAL>41</PAGE.TOTAL>
            <NO.DOC FORMAT="YN">
               <NO.CURRENT>520</NO.CURRENT>
               <YEAR>2000</YEAR>
               <COM>EC</COM>
            </NO.DOC>
         </BIB.INSTANCE.CONS>
         <NO.CELEX>300D0520</NO.CELEX>
         <DATE ISO="20000726">20000726</DATE>
         <TITLE>
            <TI>
               <P>
                  <HT TYPE="UC">Commission Decision</HT>
               </P>
               <P>of 26 July 2000</P>
               <P>pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce</P>
               <P>(notified under document number C(2000) 2441)</P>
               <P>(Text with EEA relevance)</P>
               <P>(2000/520/EC)</P>
            </TI>
         </TITLE>
      </BIB.DATA>
      <GR.CORRIG>
         <CORRIG RELEVANT="YES">
            <BIB.DATA>
               <BIB.INSTANCE.CONS>
                  <DOCUMENT.REF.CONS>
                     <COLL>L</COLL>
                     <NO.OJ>113</NO.OJ>
                     <YEAR>2001</YEAR>
                     <LG.OJ>EN</LG.OJ>
                     <PAGE.FIRST>14</PAGE.FIRST>
                     <PAGE.SEQ>1</PAGE.SEQ>
                     <VOLUME.REF>01</VOLUME.REF>
                  </DOCUMENT.REF.CONS>
                  <DATE ISO="20010425">20010425</DATE>
                  <LG.DOC>EN</LG.DOC>
                  <PAGE.FIRST>14</PAGE.FIRST>
                  <PAGE.SEQ>1</PAGE.SEQ>
                  <PAGE.LAST>14</PAGE.LAST>
                  <PAGE.TOTAL>1</PAGE.TOTAL>
               </BIB.INSTANCE.CONS>
               <NO.CELEX>300D0520R(01)</NO.CELEX>
               <TITLE>
                  <TI>
                     <P>Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce</P>
                     <P>(<REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="215" DATE.PUB="20000825">Official Journal of the European Communities L 215 of 25 August 2000</REF.DOC.OJ>)</P>
                  </TI>
               </TITLE>
            </BIB.DATA>
         </CORRIG>
      </GR.CORRIG>
   </FAM.COMP>
   <TITLE>
      <TI>
         <P>
            <HT TYPE="UC">Commission Decision</HT>
         </P>
         <P>of 26 July 2000</P>
         <P>pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce</P>
         <P>(notified under document number C(2000) 2441)</P>
         <P>(Text with EEA relevance)</P>
         <P>(2000/520/EC)</P>
      </TI>
   </TITLE>
   <PREAMBLE>
      <PREAMBLE.INIT>
         <HT TYPE="UC">The Commission of the European Communities,</HT>
      </PREAMBLE.INIT>
      <GR.VISA>
         <VISA>Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,</VISA>
         <VISA>Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0001" NUMBERING="ARAB">
               <P>
                  <REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="281" DATE.PUB="19951123" PAGE.FIRST="31">OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31</REF.DOC.OJ>.</P>
            </NOTE>, and in particular Article 25(6) thereof,</VISA>
      </GR.VISA>
      <GR.CONSID>
         <GR.CONSID.INIT>Whereas:</GR.CONSID.INIT>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(1)</NO.P>
               <TXT>Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC Member States are required to provide that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection and the Member State laws implementing other provisions of the Directive are respected prior to the transfer.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(2)</NO.P>
               <TXT>The Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In that case personal data may be transferred from the Member States without additional guarantees being necessary.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(3)</NO.P>
               <TXT>Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or a set of data transfer operations and in respect of given conditions. The Working Party on Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data established under that Directive<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0002" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                     <P>The web address of the Working Party is: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/dataprot/wpdocs/index.htm</P>
                  </NOTE> has issued guidance on the making of such assessments<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0003" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                     <P>WP 12: Transfers of personal data to third countries: applying Articles 25 and 26 of the EU data protection Directive, adopted by the Working Party on 24 July 1998.</P>
                  </NOTE>.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(4)</NO.P>
               <TXT>Given the different approaches to data protection in third countries, the adequacy assessment should be carried out and any decision based on Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC should be enforced in a way that does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against or between third countries where like conditions prevail nor constitute a disguised barrier to trade taking into account the Community's present international commitments.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(5)</NO.P>
               <TXT>The adequate level of protection for the transfer of data from the Community to the United States recognised by this Decision, should be attained if organisations comply with the safe harbour privacy principles for the protection of personal data transferred from a Member State to the United States (hereinafter <QUOT.START ID="QS0001" REF.END="QE0001" CODE="2018"/>the Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0001" REF.START="QS0001" CODE="2019"/>) and the frequently asked questions (hereinafter <QUOT.START ID="QS0002" REF.END="QE0002" CODE="2018"/>the FAQs<QUOT.END ID="QE0002" REF.START="QE0002" CODE="2019"/>) providing guidance for the implementation of the Principles issued by the Government of the United States on 21 July 2000. Furthermore the organisations should publicly disclose their privacy policies and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, or that of another statutory body that will effectively ensure compliance with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(6)</NO.P>
               <TXT>Sectors and/or data processing not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the government bodies in the United States listed in Annex VII to this Decision should fall outside the scope of this Decision.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(7)</NO.P>
               <TXT>To ensure the proper application of this Decision, it is necessary that organisations adhering to the Principles and the FAQs can be recognised by interested parties, such as data subjects, data exporters and data protection authorities. To this end the US Department of Commerce or its designee should undertake to maintain and make available to the public a list of organisations self-certifying their adherence to the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs and falling within the jurisdiction of at least one of the government bodies listed in Annex VII to this Decision.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(8)</NO.P>
               <TXT>In the interests of transparency and in order to safeguard the ability of the competent authorities in the Member States to ensure the protection of individuals as regards the processing of their personal data, it is necessary to specify in this Decision the exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows should be justified, notwithstanding the finding of adequate protection.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(9)</NO.P>
               <TXT>The <QUOT.START ID="QS0003" REF.END="QE0003" CODE="2018"/>safe harbor<QUOT.END ID="QE0003" REF.START="QS0003" CODE="2019"/> created by the Principles and the FAQs, may need to be reviewed in the light of experience, of developments concerning the protection of privacy in circumstances in which technology is constantly making easier the transfer and processing of personal data and in the light of reports on implementation by enforcement authorities involved.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(10)</NO.P>
               <TXT>The Working Party on Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered opinions on the level of protection provided by the <QUOT.START ID="QS0004" REF.END="QE0004" CODE="2018"/>safe harbor<QUOT.END ID="QE0004" REF.START="QS0004" CODE="2019"/> Principles in the United States which have been taken into account in the preparation of the present Decision<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0004" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                     <P>WP 15: Opinion 1/99 concerning the level of data protection in the United States and the ongoing discussions between the European Commission and the United States.</P>
                     <P>WP 19: Opinion 2/99 on the Adequacy of the <QUOT.START ID="QS0005" REF.END="QE0005" CODE="2018"/>International Safe Harbor Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0005" REF.START="QS0005" CODE="2019"/> issued by the US Department of Commerce on 19 April 1999.</P>
                     <P>WP 21: Opinion 4/99 on the Frequently Asked Questions to be issued by the US Department of Commerce in relation to the proposed <QUOT.START ID="QS0006" REF.END="QE0006" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0006" REF.START="QS0006" CODE="2019"/> on the adequacy of the <QUOT.START ID="QS0007" REF.END="QE0007" CODE="2018"/>International Safe Harbor Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0007" REF.START="QS0007" CODE="2019"/>.</P>
                     <P>WP 23: Working document on the current state of play of the ongoing discussions between the European Commission and the United States Government concerning the <QUOT.START ID="QS0008" REF.END="QE0008" CODE="2018"/>International Safe Harbor Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0008" REF.START="QS0008" CODE="2019"/>.</P>
                     <P>WP 27: Opinion 7/99 on the Level of Data Protection provided by the <QUOT.START ID="QS0010" REF.END="QE0010" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor<QUOT.END ID="QE0010" REF.START="QS0010" CODE="2019"/> Principles as published together with the Frequently asked Questions (FAQs) and other related documents on 15 and 16 November 1999 by the US Department of Commerce.</P>
                     <P>WP 31: Opinion 3/200 on the EU/US dialogue concerning the <QUOT.START ID="QS0011" REF.END="QE0011" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor<QUOT.END ID="QE0011" REF.START="QS0011" CODE="2019"/> arrangement.</P>
                     <P>WP 32: Opinion 4/2000 on the level of protection provided by the <QUOT.START ID="QS0012" REF.END="QE0012" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0012" REF.START="QS0012" CODE="2019"/>.</P>
                  </NOTE>.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(11)</NO.P>
               <TXT>The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
         <CONSID>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>(12)</NO.P>
               <TXT>Pursuant to Council Decision 1999/468/EC and in particular Article 8 thereof, on 5 July 2000 the European Parliament adopted Resolution A5-0177/2000 on the draft Commission decision on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the <QUOT.START ID="QS0013" REF.END="QE0013" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor Privacy Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0013" REF.START="QS0013" CODE="2019"/> and related frequently asked questions issued by the United States Department of Commerce <NOTE NOTE.ID="E0005" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                     <P>The resolution has not yet been published in the Official Journal.</P>
                  </NOTE>. The Commission re-examined the draft decision in the light of that resolution and concluded that although the European Parliament expressed the view that certain improvements needed to be made to the <QUOT.START ID="QS0014" REF.END="QE0014" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0014" REF.START="QS0014" CODE="2019"/> and related FAQs before it could be considered to provide <QUOT.START ID="QS0015" REF.END="QE0015" CODE="2018"/>adequate protection<QUOT.END ID="QE0015" REF.START="QS0015" CODE="2019"/>, it did not establish that the Commission would exceed its powers in adopting the decision,</TXT>
            </NP>
         </CONSID>
      </GR.CONSID>
      <PREAMBLE.FINAL>
         <HT TYPE="UC">has adopted this decision:</HT>
      </PREAMBLE.FINAL>
   </PREAMBLE>
   <ENACTING.TERMS>
      <ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="001">
         <TI.ART>Article 1</TI.ART>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="001.001">
            <NO.PARAG>1.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>
               <P>For the purposes of Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, for all the activities falling within the scope of that Directive, the <QUOT.START ID="QS0016" REF.END="QE0016" CODE="2018"/>Safe Harbor Privacy Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0016" REF.START="QS0016" CODE="2019"/> (hereinafter <QUOT.START ID="QS0017" REF.END="QE0017" CODE="2018"/>the Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0017" REF.START="QS0017" CODE="2019"/>), as set out in Annex I to this Decision, implemented in accordance with the guidance provided by the frequently asked questions (hereinafter <QUOT.START ID="QS0018" REF.END="QE0018" CODE="2018"/>the FAQs<QUOT.END ID="QE0018" REF.START="QS0018" CODE="2019"/>) issued by the US Department of Commerce on 21 July 2000 as set out in Annex II to this Decision are considered to ensure an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the Community to organisations established in the United States, having regard to the following documents issued by the US Department of Commerce:</P>
               <LIST TYPE="alpha">
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(a)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>the safe harbour enforcement overview set out in Annex III;</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(b)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>a memorandum on damages for breaches of privacy and explicit authorisations in US law set out in Annex IV;</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(c)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>a letter from the Federal Trade Commission set out in Annex V;</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(d)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>a letter from the US Department of Transportation set out in Annex VI.</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
               </LIST>
            </ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="001.002">
            <NO.PARAG>2.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>
               <P>In relation to each transfer of data the following conditions shall be met:</P>
               <LIST TYPE="alpha">
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(a)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>the organisation receiving the data has unambiguously and publicly disclosed its commitment to comply with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs; and</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(b)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>the organisation is subject to the statutory powers of a government body in the United States listed in Annex VII to this Decision which is empowered to investigate complaints and to obtain relief against unfair or deceptive practices as well as redress for individuals, irrespective of their country of residence or nationality, in case of non-compliance with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs.</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
               </LIST>
            </ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="001.003">
            <NO.PARAG>3.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>The conditions set out in paragraph 2 are considered to be met for each organisation that self-certifies its adherence to the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs from the date on which the organisation notifies to the US Department of Commerce (or its designee) the public disclosure of the commitment referred to in paragraph 2(a) and the identity of the government body referred to in paragraph 2(b).</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
      </ARTICLE>
      <ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="002">
         <TI.ART>Article 2</TI.ART>
         <ALINEA>This Decision concerns only the adequacy of protection provided in the United States under the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and does not affect the application of other provisions of that Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States, in particular Article 4 thereof.</ALINEA>
      </ARTICLE>
      <ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="003">
         <TI.ART>Article 3</TI.ART>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="003.001">
            <NO.PARAG>1.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>
               <P>Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to provisions other than Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in Member States may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to an organisation that has self-certified its adherence to the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in cases where:</P>
               <LIST TYPE="alpha">
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(a)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>the government body in the United States referred to in Annex VII to this Decision or an independent recourse mechanism within the meaning of letter (a) of the Enforcement Principle set out in Annex I to this Decision has determined that the organisation is violating the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs; or</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
                  <ITEM>
                     <NP>
                        <NO.P>(b)</NO.P>
                        <TXT>there is a substantial likelihood that the Principles are being violated; there is a reasonable basis for believing that the enforcement mechanism concerned is not taking or will not take adequate and timely steps to settle the case at issue; the continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to data subjects; and the competent authorities in the Member State have made reasonable efforts under the circumstances to provide the organisation with notice and an opportunity to respond.</TXT>
                     </NP>
                  </ITEM>
               </LIST>
            </ALINEA>
            <ALINEA>The suspension shall cease as soon as compliance with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs is assured and the competent authorities concerned in the Community are notified thereof.</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="003.002">
            <NO.PARAG>2.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>Member States shall inform the Commission without delay when measures are adopted on the basis of paragraph 1.</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="003.003">
            <NO.PARAG>3.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>The Member States and the Commission shall also inform each other of cases where the action of bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs in the United States fails to secure such compliance.</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="003.004">
            <NO.PARAG>4.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>If the information collected under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 provides evidence that any body responsible for ensuring compliance with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs in the United States is not effectively fulfilling its role, the Commission shall inform the US Department of Commerce and, if necessary, present draft measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC with a view to reversing or suspending the present Decision or limiting its scope.</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
      </ARTICLE>
      <ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="004">
         <TI.ART>Article 4</TI.ART>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="004.001">
            <NO.PARAG>1.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>This Decision may be adapted at any time in the light of experience with its implementation and/or if the level of protection provided by the Principles and the FAQs is overtaken by the requirements of US legislation.</ALINEA>
            <ALINEA>The Commission shall in any case evaluate the implementation of the present Decision on the basis of available information three years after its notification to the Member States and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, including any evidence that could affect the evaluation that the provisions set out in Article 1 of this Decision provide adequate protection within the meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC and any evidence that the present Decision is being implemented in a discriminatory way.</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
         <PARAG IDENTIFIER="004.002">
            <NO.PARAG>2.</NO.PARAG>
            <ALINEA>The Commission shall, if necessary, present draft measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC.</ALINEA>
         </PARAG>
      </ARTICLE>
      <ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="005">
         <TI.ART>Article 5</TI.ART>
         <ALINEA>Member States shall take all the measures necessary to comply with this Decision at the latest at the end of a period of 90 days from the date of its notification to the Member States.</ALINEA>
      </ARTICLE>
      <ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="006">
         <TI.ART>Article 6</TI.ART>
         <ALINEA>This Decision is addressed to the Member States.</ALINEA>
      </ARTICLE>
   </ENACTING.TERMS>
   <CONS.ANNEX>
      <TITLE>
         <TI>
            <P>
               <HT TYPE="UC">Annex I</HT>
            </P>
         </TI>
         <STI>
            <P>
               <HT TYPE="UC">Safe habour privacy principles</HT>
            </P>
            <P>issued by the US Department of Commerce on 21 July 2000</P>
         </STI>
      </TITLE>
      <CONTENTS TYPE="NORMAL">
         <GR.SEQ>
            <P>The European Union's comprehensive privacy legislation, the Directive on Data Protection (the Directive), became effective on October 25, 1998. It requires that transfers of personal data take place only to non-EU countries that provide an <QUOT.START ID="QS0019" REF.END="QE0019" CODE="2018"/>adequate<QUOT.END ID="QE0019" REF.START="QS0019" CODE="2019"/> level of privacy protection. While the United States and the European Union share the goal of enhancing privacy protection for their citizens, the United States takes a different approach to privacy from that taken by the European Union. The United States uses a sectoral approach that relies on a mix of legislation, regulation, and self regulation. Given those differences, many U.S. organizations have expressed uncertainty about the impact of the EU-required <QUOT.START ID="QS0020" REF.END="QE0020" CODE="2018"/>adequacy standard<QUOT.END ID="QE0020" REF.START="QS0020" CODE="2019"/> on personal data transfers from the European Union to the United States.</P>
            <P>To diminish this uncertainty and provide a more predictable framework for such data transfers, the Department of Commerce is issuing this document and Frequently Asked Questions (<QUOT.START ID="QS0021" REF.END="QE0021" CODE="2018"/>the Principles<QUOT.END ID="QE0021" REF.START="QS0021" CODE="2019"/>) under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce. The Principles were developed in consultation with industry and the general public to facilitate trade and commerce between the United States and European Union. They are intended for use solely by U.S. organizations receiving personal data from the European Union for the purpose of qualifying for the safe harbor and the presumption of <QUOT.START ID="QS0022" REF.END="QE0022" CODE="2018"/>adequacy<QUOT.END ID="QE0022" REF.START="QS0022" CODE="2019"/> it creates. Because the Principles were solely designed to serve this specific purpose, their adoption for other purposes may be inappropriate. The Principles cannot be used as a substitute for national provisions implementing the Directive that apply to the processing of personal data in the Member States.</P>
            <P>Decisions by organizations to qualify for the safe harbor are entirely voluntary, and organizations may qualify for the safe harbor in different ways. Organizations that decide to adhere to the Principles must comply with the Principles in order to obtain and retain the benefits of the safe harbor and publicly declare that they do so. For example, if an organization joins a self-regulatory privacy program that adheres to the Principles, it qualifies for the safe harbor. Organizations may also qualify by developing their own self-regulatory privacy policies provided that they conform with the Principles. Where in complying with the Principles, an organization relies in whole or in part on self-regulation, its failure to comply with such self-regulation must also be actionable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts or another law or regulation prohibiting such acts. (See the annex for the list of U.S. statutory bodies recognized by the EU.) In addition, organizations subject to a statutory, regulatory, administrative or other body of law (or of rules) that effectively protects personal privacy may also qualify for safe harbor benefits. In all instances, safe harbor benefits are assured from the date on which each organization wishing to qualify for the safe harbor self-certifies to the Department of Commerce (or its designee) its adherence to the Principles in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Frequently Asked Question on Self-Certification.</P>
            <P>Adherence to these Principles may be limited: (a) to the extent necessary to meet national security, public interest, or law enforcement requirements; (b) by statute, government regulation, or case law that create conflicting obligations or explicit authorizations, provided that, in exercising any such authorization, an organization can demonstrate that its non-compliance with the Principles is limited to the extent necessary to meet the overriding legitimate interests furthered by such authorization; or (c) if the effect of the Directive of Member State law is to allow exceptions or derogations, provided such exceptions or derogations are applied in comparable contexts. Consistent with the goal of enhancing privacy protection, organizations should strive to implement these Principles fully and transparently, including indicating in their privacy policies where exceptions to the Principles permitted by (b) above will apply on a regular basis. For the same reason, where the option is allowable under the Principles and/or U.S. law, organizations are expected to opt for the higher protection where possible.</P>
            <P>Organizations may wish for practical or other reasons to apply the Principles to all their data processing operations, but they are only obligated to apply them to data transferred after they enter the safe harbor. To qualify for the safe harbor, organizations are not obligated to apply these Principles to personal information in manually processed filing systems. Organizations wishing to benefit from the safe harbor for receiving information in manually processed filingsystems from the EU must apply the Principles to any such information transferred after they enter the safe harbor. An organization that wishes to extend safe harbor benefits to human resources personal information transferred from the EU for use in the context of an employment relationship must indicate this when it self-certifies to the Department of Commerce (or its designee) and conform to the requirements set forth in the Frequently Asked Question on Self-Certification. Organizations will also be able to provide the safeguards necessary under Article 26 of the Directive if they include the Principles in written agreements with parties transferring data from the EU for the substantive privacy provisions, once the other provisions for such model contracts are authorized by the Commission and the Member States.</P>
            <P>U.S. law will apply to questions of interpretation and compliance with the Safe Harbor Principles (including the Frequently Asked Questions) and relevant privacy policies by safe harbor organizations, except where organizations have committed to cooperate with European Data Protection Authorities. Unless otherwise stated, all provisions of the Safe Harbor Principles and Frequently asked Questions apply where they are relevant.</P>
            <P>
               <QUOT.START ID="QS0023" REF.END="QE0023" CODE="2018"/>Personal data<QUOT.END ID="QE0023" REF.START="QS0023" CODE="2019"/> and <QUOT.START ID="QS0024" REF.END="QE0024" CODE="2018"/>personal information<QUOT.END ID="QE0024" REF.START="QS0024" CODE="2019"/> are data about an identified or identifiable individual that are within the scope of the Directive, received by a U.S. organization from the European Union, and recorded in any form.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Notice</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>An organization must inform individuals about the purposes for which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to which it discloses the information, and the choices and means the organization offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure. This notice must be provided in clear and conspicuous language when individuals are first asked to provide personal information to the organization or as soon thereafter as is practicable, but in any event before the organization uses such information for a purpose other than that for which it was originally collected or processed by the transferring organization or discloses it for the first time to a third party<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0006" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                  <P>It is not necessary to provide notice or choice when disclosure is made to a third party that is acting as an agent to perform task(s) on behalf of and under the instructions of the organization. The Onward Transfer Principle, on the other hand, does apply to such disclosures.</P>
               </NOTE>.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Choice</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>An organization must offer individuals the opportunity to choose (opt out) whether their personal information is (a) to be disclosed to a third party<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0007" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                  <P>It is not necessary to provide notice or choice when disclosure is made to a third party that is acting as an agent to perform task(s) on behalf of and under the instructions of the organization. The Onward Transfer Principle, on the other hand, does apply to such disclosures.</P>
               </NOTE> or (b) to be used for a purpose that is incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. Individuals must be provided with clear and conspicuous, readily available, and affordable mechanisms to exercise choice.</P>
            <P>For sensitive information (i.e. personal information specifying medical or health conditions, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or information specifying the sex life of the individual), they must be given affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice if the information is to be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose other than those for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual through the exercise of opt in choice. In any case, an organization should treat as sensitive any information received from a third party where the third party identifies and treats it as sensitive.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Onward transfer</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>To disclose information to a third party, organizations must apply the Notice and Choice Principles. Where an organization wishes to transfer information to a third party that is acting as an agent, as described in the endnote, it may do so if it first either ascertains that the third party subscribes to the Principles or is subject to the Directive or another adequacy finding or enters into a written agreement with such third party requiring that the third party provide at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by the relevant Principles. If the organization complies with these requirements, it shall not be held responsible (unless the organization agrees otherwise) when a third party to which it transfers such information processes it in a way contrary to any restrictions or representations, unless the organization knew or should have known the third party would process it in such a contrary way and the organization has not taken reasonable steps to prevent or stop such processing.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Security</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>Organizations creating, maintaining, using or disseminating personal information must take reasonable precautions to protect it from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Data integrity</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>Consistent with the Principles, personal information must be relevant for the purposes for which it is to be used. An organization may not process personal information in a way that is incompatible with the purposes for which it has been collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. To the extent necessary for those purposes, an organization should take reasonable steps to ensure that data is reliable for its intended use, accurate, complete, and current.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Access</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>Individuals must have access to personal information about them that an organization holds and be able to correct, amend, or delete that information where it is inaccurate, except where the burden or expense of providing access would be disproportionate to the risks to the individual's privacy in the case in question, or where the rights of persons other than the individual would be violated.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>
                     <HT TYPE="UC">Enforcement</HT>
                  </P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <P>Effective privacy protection must include mechanisms for assuring compliance with the Principles, recourse for individuals to whom the data relate affected by non-compliance with the Principles, and consequences for the organization when the Principles are not followed. At a minimum, such mechanisms must include (a) readily available and affordable independent recourse mechanisms by which each individual's complaints and disputes are investigated and resolved by reference to the Principles and damages awarded where the applicable law or private sector initiatives so provide; (b) follow up procedures for verifying that the attestations and assertions businesses make about their privacy practices are true and that privacy practices have been implemented as presented; and (c) obligations to remedy problems arising out of failure to comply with the Principles by organizations announcing their adherence to them and consequences for such organizations. Sanctions must be sufficiently rigorous to ensure compliance by organizations.</P>
         </GR.SEQ>
      </CONTENTS>
   </CONS.ANNEX>
   <CONS.ANNEX>
      <TITLE>
         <TI>
            <P>Annex</P>
         </TI>
         <STI>
            <P>List of U.S. Statutory Bodies Recognized by the European Union</P>
         </STI>
      </TITLE>
      <CONTENTS TYPE="NORMAL">
         <P>The European Union recognizes the following U.S. government bodies as being empowered to investigate complaints and to obtain relief against unfair or deceptive practices as well as redress for individuals in case of non-compliance with the Principles implemented in accordance with the FAQs:
<LIST TYPE="DASH">
               <ITEM>
                  <P>The Federal Trade Commission on the basis of its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,</P>
               </ITEM>
               <ITEM>
                  <P>The Department of Transportation on the basis of its authority under Title 49 United States Code Section 41712.</P>
               </ITEM>
            </LIST>
         </P>
      </CONTENTS>
   </CONS.ANNEX>
   <CONS.ANNEX>
      <TITLE>
         <TI>
            <P>
               <HT TYPE="UC">Annex II</HT>
            </P>
         </TI>
         <STI>
            <P>
               <HT TYPE="UC">Frequently asked questions</HT> (FAQs)</P>
         </STI>
      </TITLE>
      <CONTENTS TYPE="NORMAL">
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 1 -- Sensitive Data</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Must an organization always provide explicit (opt in) choice with respect to sensitive data?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>No, such choice is not required where the processing is: (1) in the vital interests of the data subject or another person; (2) necessary for the establishment of legal claims or defenses; (3) required to provide medical care or diagnosis; (4) carried out in the course of legitimate activities by a foundation, association or any other non-profit body with a political, philosophical, religious or trade-union aim and on condition that the processing relates solely to the members of the body or to the persons who have regular contact with it in connection with its purposes and that the data are not disclosed to a third party without the consent of the data subjects; (5) necessary to carry out the organization's obligations in the field of employment law; or (6) related to data that are manifestly made public by the individual.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 2 -- Journalistic Exceptions</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Given U.S. constitutional protections for freedom of the press and the Directive's exemption for journalistic material, do the Safe Harbor Principles apply to personal information gathered, maintained, or disseminated for journalistic purposes?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Where the rights of a free press embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution intersect with privacy protection interests, the First Amendment must govern the balancing of these interests with regard to the activities of U.S. persons or organizations. Personal information that is gathered for publication, broadcast, or other forms of public communication of journalistic material, whether used or not, as well as information found in previously published material disseminated from media archives, is not subject to the requirements of the Safe Harbor Principles.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 3 -- Secondary Liability</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Are Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecommunications carriers, or other organizations liable under the Safe Harbor Principles when on behalf of another organization they merely transmit, route, switch or cache information that may violate their terms?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>No. As is the case with the Directive itself, the safe harbor does not create secondary liability. To the extent that an organization is acting as a mere conduit for data transmitted by third parties and does not determine the purposes and means of processing those personal data, it would not be liable.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 4 -- Investment Banking and Audits</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">The activities of auditors and investment bankers may involve processing personal data without the consent or knowledge of the individual. Under what circumstances is this permitted by the Notice, Choice, and Access Principles?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Investment bankers or auditors may process information without knowledge of the individual only to the extent and for the period necessary to meet statutory or public interest requirements and in other circumstances in which the application of these Principles would prejudice the legitimate interests of the organization. These legitimate interests include the monitoring of companies' compliance with their legal obligations and legitimate accounting activities, and the need for confidentiality connected with possible acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, or other similar transactions carried out by investment bankers or auditors.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 5 
							<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0008" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                        <P>The inclusion of this FAQ in the package depends on the agreement of the DPAs. They have discussed the present text in the Article 29 Working Party and a majority find it acceptable, but they are only prepared to take a definitive view in the context of the overall opinion which the Working Party will issue on the final package.</P>
                     </NOTE>
							-- The Role of the Data Protection Authorities</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="UC">How will companies that commit to cooperate with European Union Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) make those commitments and how will they be implemented?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Under the safe harbor, U.S. organizations receiving personal data from the EU must commit to employ effective mechanisms for assuring compliance with the Safe Harbor Principles. More specifically as set out in the Enforcement Principle, they must provide (a) recourse for individuals to whom the data relate, (b) follow up procedures for verifying that the attestations and assertions they have made about their privacy practices are true, and (c) obligations to remedy problems arising out of failure to comply with the Principles and consequences for such organizations. An organization may satisfy points (a) and (c) of the Enforcement Principle if it adheres to the requirements of this FAQ for cooperating with the DPAs.</TXT>
               <P>An organization may commit to cooperate with the DPAs by declaring in its safe harbor certification to the Department of Commerce (see FAQ 6 on self-certification) that the organization:
<LIST TYPE="ARAB">
                     <ITEM>
                        <NP>
                           <NO.P>1.</NO.P>
                           <TXT>elects to satisfy the requirement in points (a) and (c) of the Safe Harbor Enforcement Principle by committing to cooperate with the DPAs;</TXT>
                        </NP>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <NP>
                           <NO.P>2.</NO.P>
                           <TXT>will cooperate with the DPAs in the investigation and resolution of complaints brought under the safe harbor; and</TXT>
                        </NP>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <NP>
                           <NO.P>3.</NO.P>
                           <TXT>will comply with any advice given by the DPAs where the DPAs take the view that the organization needs to take specific action to comply with the Safe Harbor Principles, including remedial or compensatory measures for the benefit of individuals affected by any non-compliance with the Principles, and will provide the DPAs with written confirmation that such action has been taken.</TXT>
                        </NP>
                     </ITEM>
                  </LIST>
               </P>
               <P>The cooperation of the DPAs will be provided in the form of information and advice in the following way:
<LIST TYPE="DASH">
                     <ITEM>
                        <P>The advice of the DPAs will be delivered through an informal panel of DPAs established at the European Union level, which will <HT TYPE="ITALIC">inter alia</HT> help ensure a harmonized and coherent approach.</P>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <P>The panel will provide advice to the U.S. organizations concerned on unresolved complaints from individuals about the handling of personal information that has been transferred from the EU under the safe harbor. This advice will be designed to ensure that the Safe Harbor Principles are being correctly applied and will include any remedies for the individual(s) concerned that the DPAs consider appropriate.</P>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <P>The panel will provide such advice in response to referrals from the organizations concerned and/or to complaints received directly from individuals against organizations which have committed to cooperate with DPAs for safe harbor purposes, while encouraging and if necessary helping such individuals in the first instance to use the in-house complaint handling arrangements that the organization may offer.</P>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <P>Advice will be issued only after both sides in a dispute have had a reasonable opportunity to comment and to provide any evidence they wish. The panel will seek to deliver advice as quickly as this requirement for due process allows. As a general rule, the panel will aim to provide advice within 60 days after receiving a complaint or referral and more quickly where possible.</P>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <P>The panel will make public the results of its consideration of complaints submitted to it, if it sees fit.</P>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <P>The delivery of advice through the panel will not give rise to any liability for the panel or for individual DPAs.</P>
                     </ITEM>
                  </LIST>
               </P>
               <P>As noted above, organizations choosing this option for dispute resolution must undertake to comply with the advice of the DPAs. If an organization fails to comply within 25 days of the delivery of the advice and has offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the panel will give notice of its intention either to submit the matter to the Federal Trade Commission or other U.S. federal or state body with statutory powers to take enforcement action in cases of deception or misrepresentation, or to conclude that the agreement to cooperate has been seriously breached and must therefore be considered null and void. In the latter case, the panel will inform the Department of Commerce (or its designee) so that the list of safe harbor participants can be duly amended. Any failure to fulfill the undertaking to cooperate with the DPAs, as well as failures to comply with the Safe Harbor Principles, will be actionable as a deceptive practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act or other similar statute.</P>
               <P>Organizations choosing this option will be required to pay an annual fee which will be designed to cover the operating costs of the panel, and they may additionally be asked to meet any necessary translation expenses arising out of the panel's consideration of referrals or complaints against them. The annual fee will not exceed USD 500 and will be less for smaller companies.</P>
               <P>The option of co-operating with the DPAs will be available to organizations joining the safe harbor during a three-year period. The DPAs will reconsider this arrangement before the end of that period if the number of U.S. organizations choosing this option proves to be excessive.</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 6 -- Self-Certification</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How does an organization self-certify that it adheres to the Safe Harbor Principles?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Safe harbor benefits are assured from the date on which an organization self-certifies to the Department of Commerce (or its designee) its adherence to the Principles in accordance with the guidance set forth below.</TXT>
               <P>To self-certify for the safe harbor, organizations can provide to the Department of Commerce (or its designee) a letter, signed by a corporate officer on behalf of the organization that is joining the safe harbor, that contains at least the following information:
<LIST TYPE="ARAB">
                     <ITEM>
                        <NP>
                           <NO.P>1.</NO.P>
                           <TXT>name of organization, mailing address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers;</TXT>
                        </NP>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <NP>
                           <NO.P>2.</NO.P>
                           <TXT>description of the activities of the organization with respect to personal information received from the EU; and</TXT>
                        </NP>
                     </ITEM>
                     <ITEM>
                        <NP>
                           <NO.P>3.</NO.P>
                           <TXT>description of the organization's privacy policy for such personal information, including: (a) where the privacy policy is available for viewing by the public, (b) its effective date of implementation, (c) a contact office for the handling of complaints, access requests, and any other issues arising under the safe harbor, (d) the specific statutory body that has jurisdiction to hear any claims against the organization regarding possible unfair or deceptive practices and violations of laws or regulations governing privacy (and that is listed in the annex to the Principles), (e) name of any privacy programs in which the organization is a member, (f) method of verification (e.g. in-house, third party)<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0009" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                                 <P>See FAQ 7 on verification.</P>
                              </NOTE>, and (g) the independent recourse mechanism that is available to investigate unresolved complaints.</TXT>
                        </NP>
                     </ITEM>
                  </LIST>
               </P>
               <P>Where the organization wishes its safe harbor benefits to cover human resources information transferred from the EU for use in the context of the employment relationship, it may do so where there is a statutory body with jurisdiction to hear claims against the organization arising out of human resources information that is listed in the annex to the Principles. In addition the organization must indicate this in its letter and declare its commitment to cooperate with the EU authority or authorities concerned in conformity with FAQ 9 and FAQ 5 as applicable and that it will comply with the advice given by such authorities.</P>
               <P>The Department (or its designee) will maintain a list of all organizations that file such letters, thereby assuring the availability of safe harbor benefits, and will update such list on the basis of annual letters and notifications received pursuant to FAQ 11. Such self-certification letters should be provided not less than annually. Otherwise the organization will be removed from the list and safe harbor benefits will no longer be assured. Both the list and theself-certification letters submitted by the organizations will be made publicly available. All organizations that self-certify for the safe harbor must also state in their relevant published privacy policy statements that they adhere to the Safe Harbor Principles.</P>
               <P>The undertaking to adhere to the Safe Harbor Principles is not time-limited in respect of data received during the period in which the organization enjoys the benefits of the safe harbor. Its undertaking means that it will continue to apply the Principles to such data for as long as the organization stores, uses or discloses them, even if it subsequently leaves the safe harbor for any reason.</P>
               <P>An organization that will cease to exist as a separate legal entity as a result of a merger or a takeover must notify the Department of Commerce (or its designee) of this in advance. The notification should also indicate whether the acquiring entity or the entity resulting from the merger will (1) continue to be bound by the Safe Harbor Principles by the operation of law governing the takeover or merger or (2) elect to self-certify its adherence to the Safe Harbor Principles or put in place other safeguards, such as a written agreement that will ensure adherence to the Safe Harbor Principles. Where neither (1) nor (2) applies, any data that has been acquired under the safe harbor must be promptly deleted.</P>
               <P>An organization does not need to subject all personal information to the Safe Harbor Principles, but it must subject to the Safe Harbor Principles all personal data received from the EU after it joins the safe harbor.</P>
               <P>Any misrepresentation to the general public concerning an organization's adherence to the Safe Harbor Principles may be actionable by the Federal Trade Commission or other relevant government body. Misrepresentations to the Department of Commerce (or its designee) may be actionable under the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. - 1001).</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 7 -- Verification</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="UC">How do organizations provide follow up procedures for verifying that the attestations and assertions they make about their safe harbor privacy practices are true and those privacy practices have been implemented as represented and in accordance with the Safe Harbor Principles?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>To meet the verification requirements of the Enforcement Principle, an organization may verify such attestations and assertions either through self-assessment or outside compliance reviews.</TXT>
               <P>Under the self-assessment approach, such verification would have to indicate that an organization's published privacy policy regarding personal information received from the EU is accurate, comprehensive, prominently displayed, completely implemented and accessible. It would also need to indicate that its privacy policy conforms to the Safe Harbor Principles; that individuals are informed of any in-house arrangements for handling complaints and of the independent mechanisms through which they may pursue complaints; that it has in place procedures for training employees in its implementation, and disciplining them for failure to follow it; and that it has in place internal procedures for periodically conducting objective reviews of compliance with the above. A statement verifying the self-assessment should be signed by a corporate officer or other authorized representative of the organization at least once a year and made available upon request by individuals or in the context of an investigation or a complaint about non-compliance.</P>
               <P>Organizations should retain their records on the implementation of their safe harbor privacy practices and make them available upon request in the context of an investigation or a complaint about non-compliance to the independent body responsible for investigating complaints or to the agency with unfair and deceptive practices jurisdiction.</P>
               <P>Where the organization has chosen outside compliance review, such a review needs to demonstrate that its privacy policy regarding personal information received from the EU conforms to the Safe Harbor Principles, that it is being complied with and that individuals are informed of the mechanisms through which they may pursue complaints. The methods of review may include without limitation auditing, random reviews, use of <QUOT.START ID="QS0025" REF.END="QE0025" CODE="2018"/>decoys<QUOT.END ID="QE0025" REF.START="QS0025" CODE="2019"/>, or use of technology tools as appropriate. A statement verifying that an outside compliance review has been successfullycompleted should be signed either by the reviewer or by the corporate officer or other authorized representative of the organization at least once a year and made available upon request by individuals or in the context of an investigation or a complaint about compliance.</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 8 -- Access</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <GR.SEQ>
               <TITLE>
                  <TI>
                     <P>Access Principle:</P>
                  </TI>
               </TITLE>
               <P>Individuals must have access to personal information about them that an organization holds and be able to correct, amend or delete that information where it is inaccurate, except where the burden or expense of providing access would be disproportionate to the risks to the individual's privacy in the case in question, or where the legitimate rights of persons other than the individual would be violated.</P>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>1. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Is the right of access absolute?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>1. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>No. Under the safe Harbor Principles, the right of access is fundamental to privacy protection. In particular, it allows individuals to verify the accuracy of information held about them. Nonetheless, the obligation of an organization to provide access to the personal information it holds about an individual is subject to the principle of proportionality or reasonableness and has to be tempered in certain instances. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum to the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines makes clear that an organization's access obligation is not absolute. It does not require the exceedingly thorough search mandated, for example, by a subpoena, nor does it require access to all the different forms in which the information may be maintained by the organization.</TXT>
                  <P>Rather, experience has shown that in responding to individuals' access requests, organizations should first be guided by the concern(s) that led to the requests in the first place. For example, if an access request is vague or broad in scope, an organization may engage the individual in a dialogue so as to better understand the motivation for the request and to locate responsive information. The organization might inquire about which part(s) of the organization the individual interacted with and/or about the nature of the information (or its use) that is the subject of the access request. Individuals do not, however, have to justify requests for access to their own data.</P>
                  <P>Expense and burden are important factors and should be taken into account but they are not controlling in determining whether providing access is reasonable. For example, if the information is used for decisions that will significantly affect the individual (e.g., the denial or grant of important benefits, such as insurance, a mortgage, or a job), then consistent with the other provisions of these FAQs, the organization would have to disclose that information even if it is relatively difficult or expensive to provide.</P>
                  <P>If the information requested is not sensitive or not used for decisions that will significantly affect the individual (e.g., non-sensitive marketing data that is used to determine whether or not to send the individual a catalog), but is readily available and inexpensive to provide, an organization would have to provide access to factual information that the organization stores about the individual. The information concerned could include facts obtained from the individual, facts gathered in the course of a transaction, or facts obtained from others that pertain to the individual.</P>
                  <P>Consistent with the fundamental nature of access, organizations should always make good faith efforts to provide access. For example, where certain information needs to be protected and can be readily separated from other information subject to an access request, the organization should redact the protected information and make available the other information. If an organization determines that access should be denied in any particular instance, it should provide the individual requesting access with an explanation of why it has made that determination and a contact point for any further inquiries.</P>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>2. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">What is confidential commercial information and may organizations deny access in order to safeguard it?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>2. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>Confidential commercial information (as that term is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on discovery) is information which an organization has taken steps to protect from disclosure, where disclosure would help a competitor in the market. The particular computer program an organization uses, such as a modeling program, or the details of that program may be confidential commercial information. Where confidential commercial information can be readily separated from other information subject to an access request, the organizationshould redact the confidential commercial information and make available the non-confidential information. Organizations may deny or limit access to the extent that granting it would reveal its own confidential commercial information as defined above, such as marketing inferences or classifications generated by the organization, or the confidential commercial information of another where such information is subject to a contractual obligation of confidentiality in circumstances where such an obligation of confidentiality would normally be undertaken or imposed.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>3. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">In providing access, may an organization disclose to individuals personal information about them derived from its data bases or is access to the data base itself required?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>3. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>Access can be provided in the form of disclosure by an organization to the individual and does not require access by the individual to an organization's data base.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>4. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Does an organization have to restructure its data bases to be able to provide access?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>4. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>Access needs to be provided only to the extent that an organization stores the information. The access principle does not itself create any obligation to retain, maintain, reorganize, or restructure personal information files.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>5. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">These replies make clear that access may be denied in certain circumstances. In what other circumstances may an organization deny individuals access to their personal information?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>5. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>Such circumstances are limited, and any reasons for denying access must be specific. An organization can refuse to provide access to information to the extent that disclosure is likely to interfere with the safeguarding of important countervailing public interests, such as national security; defense; or public security. In addition, where personal information is processed <HT TYPE="ITALIC">solely</HT> for research or statistical purposes, access may be denied. Other reasons for denying or limiting access are:</TXT>
                  <P>
                     <LIST TYPE="alpha">
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>a.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>interference with execution or enforcement of the law, including the prevention, investigation or detection of offenses or the right to a fair trial;</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>b.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>interference with private causes of action, including the prevention, investigation or detection of legal claims or the right to a fair trial;</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>c.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>disclosure of personal information pertaining to other individual(s) where such references cannot be redacted;</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>d.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>breaching a legal or other professional privilege or obligation;</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>e.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>breaching the necessary confidentiality of future or ongoing negotiations, such as those involving the acquisition of publicly quoted companies;</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>f.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>prejudicing employee security investigations or grievance proceedings;</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>g.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>prejudicing the confidentiality that may be necessary for limited periods in connection with employee succession planning and corporate re-organizations; or</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>h.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>prejudicing the confidentiality that may be necessary in connection with monitoring, inspection or regulatory functions connected with sound economic or financial management; or</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                        <ITEM>
                           <NP>
                              <NO.P>i.</NO.P>
                              <TXT>other circumstances in which the burden or cost of providing access would be disproportionate or the legitimate rights or interests of others would be violated.</TXT>
                           </NP>
                        </ITEM>
                     </LIST>
                  </P>
                  <P>An organization which claims an exception has the burden of demonstrating its applicability (as is normally the case). As noted above, the reasons for denying or limiting access and a contact point for further inquiries should be given to individuals.</P>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>6. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Can an organization charge a fee to cover the cost of providing access?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>6. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>Yes. The OECD Guidelines recognize that organizations may charge a fee, provided that it is not excessive. Thus organizations may charge a reasonable fee for access. Charging a fee may be useful in discouraging repetitive and vexatious requests.</TXT>
                  <P>Organizations that are in the business of selling publicly available information may thus charge the organization's customary fee in responding to requests for access. Individuals may alternatively seek access to their information from the organization that originally compiled the data.</P>
                  <P>Access may not be refused on cost grounds if the individual offers to pay the costs.</P>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>7. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Is an organization required to provide access to personal information derived from public records?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>7. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>To clarify first, public records are those records kept by government agencies or entities at any level that are open to consultation by the public in general. It is not necessary to apply the Access Principle to such information as long as it is not combined with other personal information, apart from when small amounts of non-public record information are used for indexing or organizing public record information. However, any conditions for consultation established by the relevant jurisdiction are to be respected. Where public record information is combined with other non-public record information (other than as specifically noted above), however, an organization must provide access to all such information, assuming it is not subject to other permitted exceptions.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>8. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Does the Access Principle have to be applied to publicly available personal information?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>8. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>As with public record information (see Q7), it is not necessary to provide access to information that is already publicly available to the public at large, as long as it is not combined with non-publicly available information.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>9. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How can an organization protect itself against repetitious or vexatious requests for access?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>9. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>An organization does not have to respond to such requests for access. For these reasons, organizations may charge a reasonable fee and may set reasonable limits on the number of times within a given period that access requests from a particular individual will be met. In setting such limitations, an organization should consider such factors as the frequency with which information is updated, the purpose for which the data are used, and the nature of the information.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>10. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How can an organization protect itself against fraudulent requests for access?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>10. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>An organization is not required to provide access unless it is supplied with sufficient information to allow it to confirm the identity of the person making the request.</TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>11. Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Is there a time within which responses must be provided to access requests?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>11. A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>Yes, organizations should respond without excessive delay and within a reasonable time period. This requirement may be satisfied in different ways as the explanatory memorandum to the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines states. For example, a data controller who provides information to data subjects at regular intervals may be exempted from obligations to respond at once to individual requests.</TXT>
               </NP>
            </GR.SEQ>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 9 -- Human Resources</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>1. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Is the transfer from the EU to the United States of personal information collected in the context of the employment relationship covered by the safe harbor?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>1. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Yes, where a company in the EU transfers personal information about its employees (past or present) collected in the context of the employment relationship, to a parent, affiliate, or unaffiliated service provider in the UnitedStates participating in the safe harbor, the transfer enjoys the benefits of the safe harbor. In such cases, the collection of the information and its processing prior to transfer will have been subject to the national laws of the EU country where it was collected, and any conditions for or restrictions on its transfer according to those laws will have to be respected.</TXT>
               <P>The Safe Harbor Principles are relevant only when individually identified records are transferred or accessed. Statistical reporting relying on aggregate employment data and/or the use of anonymized or pseudonymized data does not raise privacy concerns.</P>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>2. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How do the Notice and Choice Principles apply to such information?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>2. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>A U.S. organization that has received employee information from the EU under the safe harbor may disclose it to third parties and/or use it for different purposes only in accordance with the Notice and Choice Principles. For example, where an organization intends to use personal information collected through the employment relationship for non-employment-related purposes, such as marketing communications, the U.S. organization must provide the affected individuals with choice before doing so, unless they have already authorized the use of the information for such purposes. Moreover, such choices must not be used to restrict employment opportunities or take any punitive action against such employees.</TXT>
               <P>It should be noted that certain generally applicable conditions for transfer from some Member States may preclude other uses of such information even after transfer outside the EU and such conditions will have to be respected.</P>
               <P>In addition, employers should make reasonable efforts to accommodate employee privacy preferences. This could include, for example, restricting access to the data, anonymizing certain data, or assigning codes or pseudonyms when the actual names are not required for the management purpose at hand.</P>
               <P>To the extent and for the period necessary to avoid prejudicing the legitimate interests of the organization in making promotions, appointments, or other similar employment decisions, an organization does not need to offer notice and choice.</P>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>3. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How does the Access Principle apply?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>3. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>The FAQs on access provide guidance on reasons which may justify denying or limiting access on request in the human resources context. Of course, employers in the European Union must comply with local regulations and ensure that European Union employees have access to such information as is required by law in their home countries, regardless of the location of data processing and storage. The safe harbor requires that an organization processing such data in the United States will cooperate in providing such access either directly or through the EU employer.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>4. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How will enforcement be handled for employee data under the Safe Harbor Principles?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>4. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>In so far as information is used only in the context of the employment relationship, primary responsibility for the data <HT TYPE="ITALIC">vis-୶is</HT> the employee remains with the company in the EU. It follows that, where European employees make complaints about violations of their data protection rights and are not satisfied with the results of internal review, complaint, and appeal procedures (or any applicable grievance procedures under a contract with a trade union), they should be directed to the state or national data protection or labor authority in the jurisdiction where the employee works. This also includes cases where the alleged mishandling of their personal information has taken place in the United States, is the responsibility of the U.S. organization that has received the information from the employer and not of the employer and thus involves an alleged breach of the Safe Harbor Principles, rather than of national laws implementing the Directive. This will be the most efficient way to address the often overlapping rights and obligations imposed by local labor law and labor agreements as well as data protection law.</TXT>
               <P>A U.S. organization participating in the safe harbor that uses EU human resources data transferred from the European Union in the context of the employment relationship and that wishes such transfers to be covered by the safe harbor must therefore commit to cooperate in investigations by and to comply with the advice of competent EU authorities in such cases. The DPAs that have agreed to cooperate in this way will notify theEuropean Commission and the Department of Commerce. If a U.S. organization participating in the safe harbor wishes to transfer human resources data from a Member State where the DPA has not so agreed, the provisions of FAQ 5 will apply.</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 10 -- Article 17 contracts</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="UC">When data is transferred from the EU to the United States only for processing purposes, will a contract be required, regardless of participation by the processor in the safe harbor?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Yes. Data controllers in the European Union are always required to enter into a contract when a transfer for mere processing is made, whether the processing operation is carried out inside or outside the EU. The purpose of the contract is to protect the interests of the data controller, i.e. the person or body who determines the purposes and means of processing, who retains full responsibility for the data <HT TYPE="ITALIC">vis-୶is</HT> the individual(s) concerned. The contract thus specifies the processing to be carried out and any measures necessary to ensure that the data are kept secure.</TXT>
               <P>A U.S. organization participating in the safe harbor and receiving personal information from the EU merely for processing thus does not have to apply the Principles to this information, because the controller in the EU remains responsible for it <HT TYPE="ITALIC">vis-୶is</HT> the individual in accordance with the relevant EU provisions (which may be more stringent than the equivalent Safe Harbor Principles).</P>
               <P>Because adequate protection is provided by safe harbor participants, contracts with safe harbor participants for mere processing do not require prior authorization (or such authorization will be granted automatically by the Member States) as would be required for contracts with recipients not participating in the safe harbor or otherwise not providing adequate protection.</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ No 11 -- Dispute Resolution and Enforcement</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <GR.SEQ>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>
                     <HT TYPE="ITALIC">How should the dispute resolution requirements of the Enforcement Principle be implemented, and how will an organization's persistent failure to comply with the Principles be handled?</HT>
                  </TXT>
               </NP>
               <NP>
                  <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
                  <TXT>The Enforcement Principle sets out the requirements for safe harbor enforcement. How to meet the requirements of point (b) of the Principle is set out in the FAQ on verification (FAQ 7). This FAQ 11 addresses points (a) and (c), both of which require independent recourse mechanisms. These mechanisms may take different forms, but they must meet the Enforcement Principle's requirements. Organizations may satisfy the requirements through the following: (1) compliance with private sector developed privacy programs that incorporate the Safe Harbor Principles into their rules and that include effective enforcement mechanisms of the type described in the Enforcement Principle; (2) compliance with legal or regulatory supervisory authorities that provide for handling of individual complaints and dispute resolution; or (3) commitment to cooperate with data protection authorities located in the European Union or their authorized representatives. This list is intended to be illustrative and not limiting. The private sector may design other mechanisms to provide enforcement, so long as they meet the requirements of the Enforcement Principle and the FAQs. Please note that the Enforcement Principle's requirements are additional to the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of the introduction to the Principles that self-regulatory efforts must be enforceable under Article 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or similar statute.</TXT>
               </NP>
            </GR.SEQ>
            <GR.SEQ>
               <TITLE>
                  <TI>
                     <P>Recourse Mechanisms.</P>
                  </TI>
               </TITLE>
               <P>Consumers should be encouraged to raise any complaints they may have with the relevant organization before proceeding to independent recourse mechanisms. Whether a recourse mechanism is independent is a factual question that can be demonstrated in a number of ways, for example, by transparent composition and financing ora proven track record. As required by the enforcement principle, the recourse available to individuals must be readily available and affordable. Dispute resolution bodies should look into each complaint received from individuals unless they are obviously unfounded or frivolous. This does not preclude the establishment of eligibility requirements by the organization operating the recourse mechanism, but such requirements should be transparent and justified (for example to exclude complaints that fall outside the scope of the program or are for consideration in another forum), and should not have the effect of undermining the commitment to look into legitimate complaints. In addition, recourse mechanisms should provide individuals with full and readily available information about how the dispute resolution procedure works when they file a complaint. Such information should include notice about the mechanism's privacy practices, in conformity with the Safe Harbor Principles<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0010" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                     <P>Dispute resolution bodies are not required to conform with the enforcement principle. They may also derogate from the Principles where they encounter conflicting obligations or explicit authorizations in the performance of ther specific tasks.</P>
                  </NOTE>. They should also co-operate in the development of tools such as standard complaint forms to facilitate the complaint resolution process.</P>
            </GR.SEQ>
            <GR.SEQ>
               <TITLE>
                  <TI>
                     <P>Remedies and Sanctions.</P>
                  </TI>
               </TITLE>
               <P>The result of any remedies provided by the dispute resolution body should be that the effects of non-compliance are reversed or corrected by the organization, in so far as feasible, and that future processing by the organization will be in conformity with the Principles and, where appropriate, that processing of the personal data of the individual who has brought the complaint will cease. Sanctions need to be rigorous enough to ensure compliance by the organization with the Principles. A range of sanctions of varying degrees of severity will allow dispute resolution bodies to respond appropriately to varying degrees of non-compliance. Sanctions should include both publicity for findings of non-compliance and the requirement to delete data in certain circumstances<NOTE NOTE.ID="E0011" NUMBERING="ARAB">
                     <P>Dispute resolution bodies have discretion about the circumstances in which they use these sanctions. The sensitivity of the data concerned is one factor to be taken into consideration in deciding whether deletion of data should be required, as is whether an organization has collected, used or disclosed information in blatant contravention of the Principles.</P>
                  </NOTE>. Other sanctions could include suspension and removal of a seal, compensation for individuals for losses incurred as a result of non-compliance and injunctive orders. Private sector dispute resolution bodies and self-regulatory bodies must notify failures of safe harbor organizations to comply with their rulings to the governmental body with applicable jurisdiction or to the courts, as appropriate, and to notify the Department of Commerce (or its designee).</P>
            </GR.SEQ>
            <GR.SEQ>
               <TITLE>
                  <TI>
                     <P>FTC Action.</P>
                  </TI>
               </TITLE>
               <P>The FTC has committed to reviewing on a priority basis referrals received from privacy self-regulatory organizations, such as BBBOnline and TRUSTe, and EU Member States alleging non-compliance with the Safe Harbor Principles to determine whether Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce has been violated. If the FTC concludes that is has reason(s) to believe Section 5 has been violated, it may resolve the matter by seeking an administrative cease and desist order prohibiting the challenged practices or by filing a complaint in a federal district court, which if successful could result in a federal court order to same effect. The FTC may obtain civil penalties for violations of an administrative cease and desist order and may pursue civil or criminal contempt for violation of a federal court order. The FTC will notify the Department of Commerce of any such actions it takes. The Department of Commerce encourages other government bodies to notify it of the final disposition of any such referrals or other rulings determining adherence to the Safe Harbor Principles.</P>
            </GR.SEQ>
            <GR.SEQ>
               <TITLE>
                  <TI>
                     <P>Persistent Failure to Comply.</P>
                  </TI>
               </TITLE>
               <P>If an organization persistently fails to comply with the Principles, it is no longer entitled to benefit from the safe harbor. Persistent failure to comply arises where an organization that has self-certified to the Department of Commerce (or its designee) refuses to comply with a final determination by any self-regulatory or government body or where such a body determines that an organization frequently fails to comply with the Principles to the point where its claim to comply is no longer credible. In these cases, the organization must promptly notify the Department of Commerce (or its designee) of such facts. Failure to do so may be actionable under the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. - 1001).</P>
               <P>The Department (or its designee) will indicate on the public list it maintains of organizations self-certifying adherence to the Safe Harbor Principles any notification it receives of persistent failure to comply, whether it is received from the organization itself, from a self-regulatory body, or from a government body, but only after first providing thirty (30) days' notice and an opportunity to respond to the organization that has failed to comply. Accordingly, the public list maintained by the Department of Commerce (or its designee) will make clear which organizations are assured and which organizations are no longer assured of safe harbor benefits.</P>
               <P>An organization applying to participate in a self-regulatory body for the purposes of requalifying for the safe harbor must provide that body with full information about its prior participation in the safe harbor.</P>
            </GR.SEQ>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 12 -- Choice -- Timing of Opt Out</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Does the Choice Principle permit an individual to exercise choice only at the beginning of a relationship or at any time?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Generally, the purpose of the Choice Principle is to ensure that personal information is used and disclosed in ways that are consistent with the individual's expectations and choices. Accordingly, an individual should be able to exercise <QUOT.START ID="QS0026" REF.END="QE0026" CODE="2018"/>opt out<QUOT.END ID="QE0026" REF.START="QS0026" CODE="2019"/> (or choice) of having personal information used for direct marketing at any time subject to reasonable limits established by the organization, such as giving the organization time to make the opt out effective. An organization may also require sufficient information to confirm the identity of the individual requesting the <QUOT.START ID="QS0027" REF.END="QE0027" CODE="2018"/>opt out<QUOT.END ID="QE0027" REF.START="QS0027" CODE="2019"/>. In the United States, individuals may be able to exercise this option through the use of a central <QUOT.START ID="QS0028" REF.END="QE0028" CODE="2018"/>opt out<QUOT.END ID="QE0028" REF.START="QS0028" CODE="2019"/> program such as the Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference Service. Organizations that participate in the Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference Service should promote its availability to consumers who do not wish to receive commercial information. In any event, an individual should be given a readily available and affordable mechanism to exercise this option.</TXT>
               <P>Similarly, an organization may use information for certain direct marketing purposes when it is impracticable to provide the individual with an opportunity to opt out before using the information, if the organization promptly gives the individual such opportunity at the same time (and upon request at any time) to decline (at no cost to the individual) to receive any further direct marketing communications and the organization complies with the individual's wishes.</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 13 -- Travel Information</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">When can airline passenger reservation and other travel information, such as frequent flyer or hotel reservation information and special handling needs, such as meals to meet religious requirements or physical assistance, be transferred to organizations located outside the EU?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Such information may be transferred in several different circumstances. Under Article 26 of the Directive, personal data may be transferred <QUOT.START ID="QS0029" REF.END="QE0029" CODE="2018"/>to a third country which does not ensure an adequate level of protection within the meaning of Article 25(2)<QUOT.END ID="QE0029" REF.START="QS0029" CODE="2019"/> on the condition that it (1) is necessary to provide the services requested by the consumer or to fulfill the terms of an agreement, such as a <QUOT.START ID="QS0030" REF.END="QE0030" CODE="2018"/>frequent flyer<QUOT.END ID="QE0030" REF.START="QS0030" CODE="2019"/> agreement; or (2) has been unambiguously consented to by the consumer. U.S. organizations subscribing to the safe harbor provide adequate protection for personal data and may therefore receive data transfers from the EU without meeting those conditions or other conditions set out in Article 26 of the Directive. Since the safe harbor includes specific rules for sensitive information, such information (which may need to be collected, for example, in connection with customers' needs for physical assistance) may be included in transfers to safe harbor participants. In all cases, however, the organization transferring the information has to respect the law in the EU Member State in which it is operating, which may <HT TYPE="ITALIC">inter alia</HT> impose special conditions for the handling of sensitive data.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 14 -- Pharmaceutical and Medical Products</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>1. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">If personal data are collected in the EU and transferred to the United States for pharmaceutical research and/or other purposes, do Member State laws or the Safe Harbor Principles apply?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>1. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Member State law applies to the collection of the personal data and to any processing that takes place prior to the transfer to the United States. The Safe Harbor Principles apply to the data once they have been transferred to the United States. Data used for pharmaceutical research and other purposes should be anonymized when appropriate.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>2. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Personal data developed in specific medical or pharmaceutical research studies often play a valuable role in future scientific research. Where personal data collected for one research study are transferred to a U.S. organization in the safe harbor, may the organization use the data for a new scientific research activity?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>2. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Yes, if appropriate notice and choice have been provided in the first instance. Such a notice should provide information about any future specific uses of the data, such as periodic follow-up, related studies, or marketing. It is understood that not all future uses of the data can be specified, since a new research use could arise from new insights on the original data, new medical discoveries and advances, and public health and regulatory developments. Where appropriate, the notice should therefore include an explanation that personal data may be used in future medical and pharmaceutical research activities that are unanticipated. If the use is not consistent with the general research purpose(s) for which the data were originally collected, or to which the individual has consented subsequently, new consent must be obtained.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>3. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">What happens to an individual's data if a participant decides voluntarily or at the request of the sponsor to withdraw from the clinical trial?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>3. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Participants may decide or be asked to withdraw from a clinical trial at any time. Any data collected previous to withdrawal may still be processed along with other data collected as part of the clinical trial, however, if this was made clear to the participant in the notice at the time he or she agreed to participate.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>4. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are allowed to provide personal data from clinical trials conducted in the EU to regulators in the United States for regulatory and supervision purposes. Are similar transfers allowed to parties other than regulators, such as company locations and other researchers?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>4. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>Yes, consistent with the Principles of Notice and Choice.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>5. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">To ensure objectivity in many clinical trials, participants, and often investigators, as well, cannot be given access to information about which treatment each participant may be receiving. Doing so would jeopardize the validity of the research study and results. Will participants in such clinical trials (referred to as <QUOT.START ID="QS0031" REF.END="QE0031" CODE="2018"/>blinded<QUOT.END ID="QE0031" REF.START="QS0031" CODE="2019"/> studies) have access to the data on their treatment during the trial?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>5. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>No, such access does not have to be provided to a participant if this restriction has been explained when the participant entered the trial and the disclosure of such information would jeopardize the integrity of the research effort. Agreement to participate in the trial under these conditions is a reasonable forgoing of the right of access. Following the conclusion of the trial and analysis of the results, participants should have access to their data if they request it. They should seek it primarily from the physician or other health care provider from whom they received treatment within the clinical trial, or secondarily from the sponsoring company.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>6. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Does a pharmaceutical or medical device firm have to apply the Safe Harbor Principles with respect to notice, choice, onward transfer, and access in its product safety and efficacy monitoring activities, including the reporting of adverse events and the tracking of patients/subjects using certain medicines or medical devices (e.g. a pacemaker)?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>6. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>No, to the extent that adherence to the Principles interferes with compliance with regulatory requirements. This is true both with respect to reports by, for example, health care providers, to pharmaceutical and medical device companies, and with respect to reports by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration.</TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>7. Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Invariably, research data are uniquely key-coded at their origin by the principal investigator so as not to reveal the identity of individual data subjects. Pharmaceutical companies sponsoring such research do not receive the key. The unique key code is held only by the researcher, so that he/she can identify the research subject under special circumstances (e.g. if follow-up medical attention is required). Does a transfer from the EU to the United States of data coded in this way constitute a transfer of personal data that is subject to the Safe Harbor Principles?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>7. A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>No. This would not constitute a transfer of personal data that would be subject to the Principles.</TXT>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
         <GR.SEQ>
            <TITLE>
               <TI>
                  <P>FAQ 15 -- Public Record and Publicly Available Information</P>
               </TI>
            </TITLE>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>Q:</NO.P>
               <TXT>
                  <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Is it necessary to apply the Notice, Choice and Onward Transfer Principles to public record information or publicly available information?</HT>
               </TXT>
            </NP>
            <NP>
               <NO.P>A:</NO.P>
               <TXT>It is not necessary to apply the Notice, Choice or Onward Transfer Principles to public record information, as long as it is not combined with non-public record information and as long as any conditions for consultation established by the relevant jurisdiction are respected.</TXT>
               <P>Also, it is generally not necessary to apply the Notice, Choice or Onward Transfer Principles to publicly available information unless the European transferor indicates that such information is subject to restrictions that require application of those Principles by the organization for the uses it intends. Organizations will have no liability for how such information is used by those obtaining such information from published materials.</P>
               <P>Where an organization is found to have intentionally made personal information public in contravention of the Principles so that it or others may benefit from these exceptions, it will cease to qualify for the benefits of the safe harbor.</P>
            </NP>
         </GR.SEQ>
      </CONTENTS>
   </CONS.ANNEX>
</CONS.DOC>
</CONS.ACT>
