Article 3 GDPR: Difference between revisions
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
The GDPR does not provide a definition of “''establishment''” for the purpose of Article 3. | The GDPR does not provide a definition of “''establishment''” for the purpose of Article 3. | ||
==== Establishment in the Union ==== | ==== Establishment of a Controller in the Union ==== | ||
The application of this provision is depending on two rather broad concepts: the "''controller''" as defined in [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(7) GDPR]], which may include natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body and the "''establishments''" of said controller. | |||
An "''establishment''" must not be equivalent with a separate legal entity in the European Union. It may also be just an office or other form of activity in the Union. Recital 22 states that the “[e]''stablishment implies the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements. The legal form of such arrangements, whether through a branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the determining factor in that respect''”.<ref>EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available [https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_3_2018_territorial_scope_after_public_consultation_en_1.pdf here]).</ref> | |||
According to the European Data Protection Board, "[t]''his wording is identical to that found in Recital 19 of Directive 95/46/EC, to which reference has been made in several CJEU rulings broadening the interpretation of the term “establishment”, departing from a formalistic approach whereby undertakings are established solely in the place where they are registered''".<ref>EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available [https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_3_2018_territorial_scope_after_public_consultation_en_1.pdf here]).</ref> In particular, in [[CJEU - C‑230/14 - Weltimmo|C‑230/14 - ''Weltimmo'']] the CJEU extended the definition of establishment “''to any real and effective activity — even a minimal one — exercised through stable arrangements''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,''Weltimmo'', 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=168944&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref><blockquote><u>Example:</u> A subsidiary of a US car manufacturer in Belgium supervises its European activities, including marketing and advertising. The Belgian subsidiary operates through a "''stable arrangement''" since it carries out activities which are genuine and instrumental to the main economic activity of the US headquarters. As such, it can be seen as an "''establishment''" under the GDPR.</blockquote>The EDPB pointed out that the threshold for “''stable arrangement''” is quite low, especially in the context of online activities. Indeed, it could be met by the simple presence of a single employee or agent of a non-EU entity in the Union - if that employee or agent acts with a sufficient degree of stability. However, this concept is not "''without limit''" and cannot lead to the conclusion that a “''non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-191/15, ''Verein für Konsumenteninformation'', 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=182286&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref> | |||
The EDPB pointed out that the threshold for “''stable arrangement''” is quite low, especially in the context of online activities. Indeed, it could be met by the simple presence of a single employee or agent of a non-EU entity in the Union - if that employee or agent acts with a sufficient degree of stability. However, this concept is not "''without limit''" and cannot lead to the conclusion that a “''non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union''”.<ref>CJEU, Case C-191/15, ''Verein für Konsumenteninformation'', 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=182286&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=91583 here]).</ref> | |||
In conclusion, if a controller or processor established outside the Union exercises “''a real and effective activity - even a minimal one''” - through “''stable arrangements''”, regardless of its legal form (e.g. subsidiary, branch, office), in the territory of a Member State, this controller or processor can be considered to have an establishment in that Member State. | In conclusion, if a controller or processor established outside the Union exercises “''a real and effective activity - even a minimal one''” - through “''stable arrangements''”, regardless of its legal form (e.g. subsidiary, branch, office), in the territory of a Member State, this controller or processor can be considered to have an establishment in that Member State. |
Revision as of 10:23, 10 January 2023
Legal Text
1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.
2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:
- (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or
- (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
3. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
The first two paragraphs of Article 3 GDPR define the territorial scope of the Regulation on the basis of two main criteria: the “establishment” of a controller or a processor in the Union and the targeting of data subjects located in the EU. Where one of these two criteria is met, the relevant provisions of the GDPR will apply to the processing of personal data.
The third paragraph confirms the application of the GDPR to processing activities to which “Member State law applies by virtue of public international law”,[1] such as an embassy of an EU Member State in a third country.
(1) Controller or Processor Established in the Union
The GDPR does not provide a definition of “establishment” for the purpose of Article 3.
Establishment of a Controller in the Union
The application of this provision is depending on two rather broad concepts: the "controller" as defined in Article 4(7) GDPR, which may include natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body and the "establishments" of said controller.
An "establishment" must not be equivalent with a separate legal entity in the European Union. It may also be just an office or other form of activity in the Union. Recital 22 states that the “[e]stablishment implies the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements. The legal form of such arrangements, whether through a branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the determining factor in that respect”.[2]
According to the European Data Protection Board, "[t]his wording is identical to that found in Recital 19 of Directive 95/46/EC, to which reference has been made in several CJEU rulings broadening the interpretation of the term “establishment”, departing from a formalistic approach whereby undertakings are established solely in the place where they are registered".[3] In particular, in C‑230/14 - Weltimmo the CJEU extended the definition of establishment “to any real and effective activity — even a minimal one — exercised through stable arrangements”.[4]
Example: A subsidiary of a US car manufacturer in Belgium supervises its European activities, including marketing and advertising. The Belgian subsidiary operates through a "stable arrangement" since it carries out activities which are genuine and instrumental to the main economic activity of the US headquarters. As such, it can be seen as an "establishment" under the GDPR.
The EDPB pointed out that the threshold for “stable arrangement” is quite low, especially in the context of online activities. Indeed, it could be met by the simple presence of a single employee or agent of a non-EU entity in the Union - if that employee or agent acts with a sufficient degree of stability. However, this concept is not "without limit" and cannot lead to the conclusion that a “non-EU entity has an establishment in the Union merely because the undertaking’s website is accessible in the Union”.[5]
In conclusion, if a controller or processor established outside the Union exercises “a real and effective activity - even a minimal one” - through “stable arrangements”, regardless of its legal form (e.g. subsidiary, branch, office), in the territory of a Member State, this controller or processor can be considered to have an establishment in that Member State.
Processing of personal data carried out “in the context of the activities” of an establishment in the Union
Article 3(1) confirms that it is not necessary that the processing in question is carried out “by” the relevant EU establishment itself; the controller or processor will be subject to obligations under the GDPR whenever the processing is carried out “in the context of the activities” of its relevant establishment in the Union. What this concept means exactly is to be understood in light of the relevant case law.
The courts have generally taken a broad interpretation on the matter. In particular, in Wirtschaftsakademie, the CJEU stated (with regard to Directive 95/46/EC) that processing carried out in the context of the activities of the controller’s establishment “cannot be interpreted restrictively” and that processing “does not require that such processing be carried out ‘by’ the establishment concerned itself, but only that it be carried out ‘in the context of the activities of’ the establishment”.[6] The Weltimmo case confirmed that the concept “cannot be interpreted restrictively”.[7]
The EDPB suggests that two factors may help in determining whether processing occurs in the context of an establishment in the Union. The first one is the relationship between the non-EU entity and its local establishment in the Union. If a case-by-case analysis on the facts shows that there is an “inextricable link” between the processing of personal data carried out by a non-EU controller or processor and the activities of an EU establishment, EU law will apply to that processing by the non-EU entity, whether or not the EU establishment plays a role in that processing of data. The second factor concerns whether or not the local establishment in the EU contributes to the revenues of the non-EU entity. This may potentially be the case, for example, for any foreign operator with a sales office or some other presence in the EU, even if that office has no role in the actual data processing, in particular where the processing takes place in the context of the sales activity in the EU and the activities of the establishment are aimed at the inhabitants of the Member States in which the establishment is located.[8]
On several occasions, for instance, the French CNIL found such a requirement in the activities of Google France, the French subsidiary of Google US. The CNIL has noted the auxiliary function of Google France which manages its website “pour mission d’accompagner les petites et moyennes entreprises en France à travers le développement d’outils de collaboration, de solutions publicitaires ou pour leur donner les clés de compréhension de leurs marchés et de leurs consommateurs”. The website was deemed to be not a simple showcase, as “Google France dispose d’une équipe de vente dédiée à la promotion et à la vente des services de GIL à l’égard des annonceurs et des éditeurs basés en France, comme Google Ads”.[9] Finally, the CNIL has also found a connection when the French subsidiary provides its (advertising) services “grâce aux données collectées par le biais des cookies déposés sur les terminaux des internautes”.[10]
At the same time, the EDPB has stated that this requirement should not be interpreted too broadly to conclude that the existence of any presence in the EU with even the remotest links to the data processing activities of a non-EU entity will be sufficient to bring this processing within the scope of EU data protection law. For example, "when an employee is based in the EU but the processing is not being carried out in the context of the activities of the EU-based employee in the Union (i.e. the processing relates to activities of the controller outside the EU), the mere presence of an employee in the EU will not result in that processing falling within the scope of the GDPR".[11]
The GDPR applies regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not
The location of the processing itself is irrelevant to determine the geographical scope of Article 3(1) GDPR. As explained by the EDPB, geographical location is only relevant to answer whether a controller or processor is established in- or outside the Union and whether a non-EU controller or processor has an establishment in the Union.
If both the controller and/or the processor have an establishment in the European Union and are therefore both subject to the GDPR under Article 3(1), the conclusion is fairly simple: they will both have to adhere to their respective obligations. However, the situation becomes slightly more complicated if one of the two parties is not subject to the territorial scope of the GDPR (as described above). In this event, there are essentially two cases: (i) a controller subject to the GDPR assigns a part of the processing to a processor not subject to the GDPR and, conversely, (ii) a controller not subject to the GDPR assigns a part of the processing to a processor subject to the GDPR.[12]
In the first case, (i), the controller subject to the GDPR must ensure that the conditions set out in Article 28 GDPR are met. In particular, the processor has to ensure that its actions comply with the requirements of the GDPR. In addition, the controller must only proceed with the assignment after having the processor accept a contract that allows him to monitor the performance of the processor, as stipulated in Article 28(3) GDPR. In other words, “[t]he processor located outside the Union will therefore become indirectly subject to some obligations imposed by controllers subject to the GDPR by virtue of contractual arrangements under Article 28. Moreover, provisions of Chapter V of the GDPR may apply". In the second case, (ii), the controller will not become subject to the GDPR simply because it chooses to use a processor who is. According to the EDPB, the activities of the processor are not “inextricably linked” with those of the controller. Consequently, the use of a processor territorially subject to the GDPR does not lead to the application of the GDPR to the controller.[13]
(2) Targeting the Union Market
If the controller or the processor is not established in the EU, the GDPR can nonetheless be triggered if personal data of individuals located in the Union are being processed. In light of Recital 14 GDPR and the EDPB guidelines, the targeting criterion covers any natural person located in the Union to the extent that they are subject to processing as described in Article 3(2)(a) and (b) GDPR. In other words, the protection is neither limited by residence nor nationality. The requirement that the data subject be located in the Union must be assessed at the moment in time when the relevant trigger activity takes place, such as the moment when goods or services are offered, or the moment when the behavior of the data subject is being monitored (letters (a) and (b) below). The processing activities related to data subjects in the Union must have taken place intentionally, rather than inadvertently or incidentally.[14]
(a) Offering of Goods or Services
The concept of "goods and services" has been clarified in EU law (e.g. Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market) and case law, inter alia on the interpretation of Articles 28 to 37 and 56 to 62 TFEU. “Goods” are products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial and lawful transactions.[15] “Services” are activities developed by the provider and directed to a recipient, typically for remuneration.[16] This includes “any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”,[17] as also supported by the EDPB.[18]
Recital 23 GDPR confirms that the mere act of visiting a controller’s or processor’s website is not in itself sufficient to prove intention to offer goods or services. This was also confirmed in the Verein für Konsumenteninformation decision, where the CJEU held that merely being able to access a website in a Member State is not enough to lead to an "establishment" of the controller or processor in that Member State.[19] Therefore, there must be more engagement between the data subject and the controller or processor for the requirement of offering "goods and services" to be fulfilled. The processing is covered "irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required".
(b) The Monitoring of Data Subjects' Behaviour
The monitoring of data subjects’ behaviour is not defined in the GDPR. Recital 24 GDPR nevertheless clarifies that “[i]n order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.” The EDPB has expanded the scope of this to include not only tracking of a person on the internet, but also tracking through other kinds of network or technologies which involve personal data processing, so for instance, tracking through the use of wearables or smart devices.[20]
(3) The Public International Law Criterion
The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union if the Member State’s legislation applies by virtue of public international law. Recital 25 GDPR gives the example of processing taking place in a “Member State’s diplomatic mission or consular post”. The EDPB gives as a further example the case of a German cruise ship travelling in international waters. By virtue of public international law, the GDPR will apply even though the ship is in international waters.[21]
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 3 GDPR
References
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 4 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,Weltimmo, 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-210/16, Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH, 5 June 2018, margin numbers 56-57 (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-230/14, ,Weltimmo, 1 October 2015, margin number 31 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here).
- ↑ CNIL, SAN-2020-012, § 44 (available here).
- ↑ CNIL, SAN-2020-013, § 51 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6-7 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), pp. 10-12 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 12 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), pp. 14-15 (available here). This is also confirmed by Recital 23 GDPR, which states that “in order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.”
- ↑ E.g. CJEU, Case C-7/68, Commission v Italy, 10 December 1968 (available here); CJEU, Case C-50/80, Horvath, 5 February 1981 (available here); CJEU, Case C-421/09, Humanplasma, 9 December 2010 (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-263/86, Humbel and Edel, 27 September 1988 (available here).
- ↑ Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 16 (available here) referring to Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, 28 July 2016, margin number 76 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 19 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 19 (available here).