Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of IAB Europe (Case C‑604/22). In this judgment, the CJEU assessed the role of the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) in the processing operations associated with its Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”) and further developed CJEU case law on the concept of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On January 11, 2023, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”) announced that it has approved the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe’s (“IAB Europe”) action plan with respect to its Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”).

On February 2, 2022, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €250,000 fine against the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) for several alleged infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), following an investigation into IAB Europe Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”).

On November 5, 2021, IAB Europe (“IAB EU”) announced that, in the coming weeks, the Belgian Data Protection Authority plans to share with other data protection authorities a draft ruling on the IAB EU Transparency & Consent Framework (“TCF”). The TCF is a GDPR consent solution built by IAB EU that has become a widely used approach to collecting consent to cookies under the GDPR. The draft ruling is expected to find that the TCF does not comply with the GDPR, in part because IAB EU acts as a controller, and the digital signals the TCF creates to capture individuals’ consent to cookies are personal data under the GDPR. Because IAB EU does not consider itself a controller with respect to the TCF, it does not currently comply with the GDPR’s controller obligations.

On August 19, 2021, the Belgian Council of State confirmed a decision of the regional Flemish Authorities to contract with an EU branch of a U.S. company using Amazon Web Services (“AWS”).

On June 15, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) released its judgment in case C-645/19 of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”). We previously reported on the background of the case and the Advocate General’s opinion.

On June 11, 2021, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”) released its 2020 Annual Report (the “Report”). Notably in 2020, the Belgian DPA focused on the supervision of initiatives to fight the COVID-19 pandemic involving data processing, while not losing sight of its other priorities, as identified in its Strategic Plan 2020-2025.

Due to the increased awareness of the importance of the protection of personal data, 2020 had a significant increase in the number of complaints, which were up 290.64%, and data breach notifications, which were up 25.09%, received by the Belgian DPA.

On May 20, 2021, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”), as the lead authority (in collaboration with two co-reviewing authorities), announced that it had approved the EU Data Protection Code of Conduct for Cloud Service Providers (the “EU Cloud CoC”). The EU Cloud CoC is the first transnational EU code of conduct since the entry into force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

On April 22, 2021, the Belgian Constitutional Court annulled (in French) the framework set forth by the Law of 29 May 2016 (the “Law”) requiring telecommunications providers to retain electronic communications data in bulk.

On January 13, 2021, Advocate General (“AG”) Michal Bobek of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued his Opinion in the Case C-645/19 of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”).

The global privacy and cybersecurity team at Hunton Andrews Kurth has authored multiple chapters of the 2021 Data Protection & Privacy guide by Lexology’s Getting the Deal Through. Partner Aaron P. Simpson and practice chair Lisa J. Sotto served as contributing editors of the ninth edition of the annual guide, which provides summary and analysis in key areas of law, practice and regulation for 150 jurisdictions across the globe.

On October 6, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down Grand Chamber judgments determining that the ePrivacy Directive (the “Directive”) does not allow for EU Member States to adopt legislation intended to restrict the scope of its confidentiality obligations unless they comply with the general principles of EU law, particularly the principle of proportionality, as well as fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”).

On September 30, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released its 2019 Annual Report (the “Report”). Notably, 2019 was the year of the Belgian DPA’s first fines under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) and the release of the Belgian DPA’s 2019-2025 Strategic Plan.

On July 30, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €20,000 fine on Belgian telecommunications provider Proximus N.V. (“Proximus”) for several data protection infringements related to Proximus’ public directory. In particular, the claimant requested that Proximus remove his contact details from the public directory and inform other publishers of public directories not to publish his personal data. Despite informing the claimant that it was going to proceed accordingly, Proximus still published his personal data in its public directory and shared it with other publishers of public directories.

On July 14, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €600,000 fine on Google Belgium SA (“Google”) for non-compliance with the right to be forgotten.

On June 16, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a fine on a company (the “defendant”) for unlawful and incorrect processing of personal data and non-compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation’s (the “GDPR”) data subject rights provisions.

On June 5, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published guidance on its website (the “Guidance”) regarding temperature checks during the COVID-19 crisis. The Guidance aims to provide advice to organizations looking to control access to their premises by restricting individuals with fevers in order to prevent further spread of the virus.

On May 29, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a fine of €1,000 on a non-profit organization. The decision followed a complaint filed by an individual who continued to receive promotional materials from the organization after he had objected to the processing of his contact details for direct marketing purposes and had requested that the organization erase his data from its database.

On May 25 and May 26, 2020 respectively, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published two opinions on draft laws introducing COVID-19-related tracking initiatives: (1) the Opinion 42/2020 on the draft law for the creation of a database by Sciensano, a public health institution (“Opinion 42/2020”), and (2) the Opinion 43/2020 on the draft law for the use of contact tracing apps to fight the spread of COVID-19 (“Opinion 43/2020”).

Join us on May 19, 2020, for an in-depth webinar on the Key Privacy Considerations for Reopening Businesses in the EU. Our featured speakers, Hunton Brussels lawyers Claire François and Laura Léonard, will highlight key data protection issues that arise in connection with the measures employers may take to limit or prevent the spread of COVID-19, including:

• The types of health information that may be collected from employees and visitors;
• Measures to consider when processing that information; and
• Whether and how to conduct temperature checks.

On April 28, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €50,000 fine on a company for non-compliance with the requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) related to the appointment of a data protection officer (“DPO”).

On April 9, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released guidance and a set of frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) regarding the use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

On March 31, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published a short statement on its website (the “Statement”) regarding health-related apps. The Belgian DPA indicated that the Statement is in response to numerous questions regarding the use of personal data in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 13, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released a statement regarding workplace-related processing of personal data in the context of the COVID-19 crisis (the “Statement”).

On February 10, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Recommendation 1/2020 on data processing activities for direct marketing purposes (the “Recommendation”). With this Recommendation, the Belgian DPA aims to clarify the complex rules relating to the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes, including by providing practical examples and guidelines to the different stakeholders involved in direct marketing activities. Direct marketing is one of the Belgian DPA’s top priorities for the next few years, as indicated in its 2019-2025 Strategic Plan.

On December 12, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released its draft 2019-2025 Strategic Plan (the “Draft Plan”). In the Draft Plan, the Belgian DPA describes its vision for the years to come, defines its priorities and strategic objectives and lists the necessary means to achieve its objectives.

On September 17, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a fine of EUR 10,000 on a shop for the disproportionate use of customers’ electronic identity cards (the “eIDs ”) – a national identification card.

On August 21, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published a press release informing of its intention to further investigate a data breach that was notified by Adecco Belgium, a temporary employment agency. The data breach affected thousands of biometric data, including fingerprints and images allowing facial recognition, and was suffered by the company Suprema. The compromised data included approximately 2,000 fingerprints of Adecco Belgium’s employees.

On June 12, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) launched a public consultation on direct marketing with a view to updating its Recommendation No. 02/2013 of January 30, 2013 on direct marketing (the “Direct Marketing Recommendation”).

On June 12, 2019, Hunton Andrews Kurth and its Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) hosted a roundtable discussion in the firm’s Brussels office on the update of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses for international data transfers (“SCCs”). More than 30 privacy leaders joined together to discuss the challenges of the current SCCs and provide their insights on the updated versions. Hunton partner David Dumont led the discussion, while CIPL President Bojana Bellamy illuminated CIPL’s work in this area. The session also featured Cristina Monti, Policy Officer in the International Data Flows and Protection Unit of the EU Commission DG Justice and Consumers.

On May 28, 2019, shortly after the appointment of the new Belgian commissioner and the Director of the Litigation Chamber, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed its first fine since the EU General Data Protection Regulation ( “GDPR”) came into effect. The Belgian DPA fined a Belgian mayor EUR 2,000 for abusive use of personal data obtained in the context of his mayoral functions for election campaign purposes.

On April 25, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2018 (the “Annual Report”), highlighting the main developments and accomplishments of the past year.

On March 29, 2019, the Belgian House of Representatives appointed a new commissioner and four directors, who will lead the reformed Belgian data protection authority (“DPA”). The appointments follow a vote of the plenary of the Belgian parliament.

The Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) recently published the updated list of the types of processing activities which require a data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”). Article 35.4 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) obligates supervisory authorities (“SAs”) to establish a list of the processing operations that require a DPIA and transmit it to the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”).

The Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) recently published on its website a form to be completed for prior consultation in the context of a data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”).

On October 22, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP co-hosted a workshop in Brussels on “Can GDPR Work for Health Scientific Research?” (the “Workshop”) with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (“EFPIA”) and the Future of Privacy Forum (“FPF”) to address the challenges raised by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in conducting scientific health research.

On November 23, 2018, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published a review of its activities since the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) became applicable on May 25, 2018 (the “Review”).

On September 5, 2018, the Law of 30 July 2018 on the Protection of Natural Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (the “Law”) was published in the Belgian Official Gazette.

This is the second step in adapting the Belgian legal framework to the EU GDPR after the Law of 3 December 2017 Creating the Data Protection Authority, which reformed the Belgian Data Protection Authority.

The Law is available in French and Dutch.

On May 2, 2018, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2017 (the “Annual Report”), highlighting its main accomplishments for the past year.

The Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) recently released a Recommendation (in French and Dutch) on Data Protection Impact Assessment (“DPIA”) and the prior consultation requirements under Articles 35 and 36 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Recommendation”). The Recommendation aims to provide guidance on the core elements and requirements of a DPIA, the different actors involved and specific provisions.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP is pleased to announce that Nathalie Laneret will be joining CIPL as Director of Privacy Policy in May. She brings more than 20 years of experience in data protection policy both in-house and in private practice. She is admitted to the New York and Paris bars and has experience in both France and in the U.S. on data protection, IT and security matters, contracts, competition law, compliance issues and litigation.

On January 10, 2018, the Law of 3 December 2017 creating the Data Protection Authority (the “Law”) was published in the Belgian Official Gazette. The Law was submitted in the Chamber of Representatives on August 23, 2017, and was approved by the Parliament in plenary meeting on November 16, 2017.

Recently, the fourth edition of the book, The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Data Protection 2017, was published by the Global Legal Group. Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity lawyers prepared several chapters in the guide, including the opening chapter on “All Change for Data Protection: The European Data Protection Regulation,” co-authored by London partner Bridget Treacy and associate Anita Bapat. Several other global privacy and cybersecurity team members also prepared chapters in the guide, including David Dumont (Belgium), Claire François (France), Judy Li (China), Manuel E. Maisog (China), Wim Nauwelaerts (Belgium), Anna Pateraki (Germany), Aaron P. Simpson (United States), Adam Smith (United Kingdom) and Jenna Rode (United States).

This post has been updated. 

The Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) recently released a Recommendation regarding the requirement to maintain internal records of data processing activities (the “Recommendation”) pursuant to Article 30 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The Recommendation aims to provide guidance to data controllers and data processors in establishing and maintaining internal records by May 25, 2018. As of that date, the internal records requirement must be complied with, and the Belgian DPA must be able to request that such records are made available to it.

Recently, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) released a Recommendation (in French and Dutch) regarding the requirement to appoint a data protection officer (“DPO”) under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On May 26, 2017, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2016 (the “Annual Report”) highlighting its main accomplishments from the past year.

The Privacy team at Hunton & Williams has authored several chapters of the recently published 2017 guide to data protection and privacy for Getting the Deal Through. The publication covers data privacy and data protection laws in 26 jurisdictions across the globe. Wim Nauwelaerts, Privacy team partner in the firm’s Brussels office, served as the contributing editor of the guide and co-authored the Belgium chapter and the EU overview.

On October 20, 2016, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP hosted a side workshop at the International Conference of Data Protection & Privacy Commissioners focused on transparency and risk assessment, entitled “The Role of Risk Assessment and Transparency in Enabling Organizational Accountability in the Digital Economy.” The workshop was led by Bojana Bellamy, CIPL’s President, and featured contributions from many leaders in the field, including the UK ICO, Belgium and Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioners, and counsel and privacy officers from several multinational companies.

On September 16, 2016, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Privacy Commission”) published a 13-step guidance document (in French and Dutch) to help organizations prepare for the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The 13 steps recommended by the Privacy Commission are summarized below.

Hunton & Williams announces its participation with the Global Legal Group in the publication of the third edition of the book The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Data Protection 2016. The guide provides corporate counsel and international practitioners with a comprehensive worldwide legal analysis of the laws and regulations relating to data protection. Bridget Treacy, partner and head of the UK privacy and cybersecurity practice, served as the contributing editor of the guide and co-authored the UK chapter.

On June 9, 2016, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2015 (the “Annual Report”) highlighting its main accomplishments.

In a recently published decision, the Belgian Court of Cassation confirmed the broad interpretation given to the “right to be forgotten” by a Belgian Court of Appeal (i.e., Cour d’Appel de Liège, 2013/RG/393, September 25, 2014).

The judgment was rendered in a case initiated by an individual against a Belgian newspaper for not complying with a request to remove from its online archives an article from 1994 regarding a car accident causing the death of two persons in which the individual was involved.

Hunton & Williams proudly announces that the firm was ranked in Tier 1 in The Legal 500 United Kingdom 2015 guide for data protection. Bridget Treacy, head of the firm’s UK Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, and Rosemary Jay, senior consultant attorney, both received recognition as leading individuals for data protection.

Hunton & Williams is pleased to announce its participation with the Global Legal Group in the publication of the second edition of the book The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Data Protection 2015. Members of the Hunton & Williams Global Privacy and Cybersecurity team prepared several chapters in the guide, including the opening chapter on “Legislative Change: Assessing the European Commission’s Proposal for a Data Protection Regulation,” and chapters on Belgium, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

On May 13, 2015, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “DPA”) published a recommendation addressing the use of social plug-ins associated with Facebook and its services (the “Recommendation”). The Recommendation stems from the recent discussions between the DPA and Facebook regarding Facebook’s privacy policy and the tracking of individuals’ Internet activities.

On November 18, 2014, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (the “Centre”) held the second workshop in its ongoing work on the risk-based approach to privacy and a Privacy Risk Framework. Approximately 70 Centre members, privacy regulators and other privacy experts met in Brussels to discuss the benefits and challenges of the risk-based approach, operationalizing risk assessments within organizations, and employing risk analysis in enforcement. In discussing these issues, the speakers emphasized that the risk-based approach does not change the obligation to comply with privacy laws but helps with the effective calibration of privacy compliance programs.

On September 16, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program covered a number of privacy and data protection topics, including updates in the EU and Germany, highlights on the UK Information Commissioner’s Office annual report and an APEC update.

On September 10, 2014, the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (“GPEN”) published the results of an enforcement sweep carried out in May of this year to assess mobile app compliance with data protection laws. Twenty-six data protection authorities worldwide evaluated 1,211 mobile apps and found that a large majority of the apps are accessing personal data without providing adequate information to users.

On July 17, 2014, the Belgian government announced that it has finalized its Royal Decree on the establishment of a Cybersecurity Center (Centrum Cyber Security België or Centre Cyber Security Belgique). The Cybersecurity Center’s tasks would be to monitor the country’s cybersecurity and manage cyber incidents. It also would oversee various cybersecurity projects, formulate legislative proposals relating to cybersecurity, and issue standards and guidelines for securing public sector IT systems. The Cybersecurity Center is expected to be operational by the end of ...

On April 24, 2014, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Privacy Commission”) published a Draft Recommendation regarding cookie usage, inviting all stakeholders to provide their input on the text. The Draft Recommendation clarifies the Belgian legal framework for the use of cookies and similar technologies, examining in detail the different purposes for which cookies and similar technologies may be used (e.g., authentication, storage of preferences) and explaining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance for each type of cookie use.

On October 8, 2013, a Royal Decree was published completing the transposition of the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC (the “Data Retention Directive”) into Belgian law. The Royal Decree was adopted on September 19, 2013.

On June 25, 2013, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Privacy Commission”) and the Belgian Ministry of Justice agreed on a Protocol establishing new rules for the approval of international data transfer agreements.

In recent months, the Belgian media has reported on a significant increase in data breaches. In December 2012, the National Belgian Railway Company inadvertently published 1.46 million sets of customer data online. The rise in data security incidents has caught the attention of the Belgian Privacy Commission, which has the authority to make recommendations on any matter relating to the application of the fundamental data protection principles in the Belgian Data Protection Act of December 8, 1992. In a May 2013 article published in Bloomberg BNA’s World Data Protection Report

On June 6, 2013, the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs Council held legislative deliberations regarding key issues concerning the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”). The discussions were based on the Irish Presidency’s draft compromise text on Chapters I to IV of the Proposed Regulation, containing the fundamentals of the proposal and reflecting the Presidency’s view of the state of play of negotiations. At the Council meeting, the Presidency was seeking general support for the conclusions drawn in their draft compromise text on the key issues in Chapters I to IV.

On May 31, 2013, the Council of the European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs released a draft compromise text in response to the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”). This compromise text narrows the scope of the Proposed Regulation and seeks to move from a detailed, prescriptive approach toward a risk-based framework.

On April 29, 2013, the Belgian Privacy Commission announced that it referred a data breach case involving The National Belgian Railway Company to the Brussels Public Prosecutor. The data breach, which occurred in December 2012, resulted in the 1.46 million sets of customer data being made publicly available online. The Privacy Commission investigated the case and concluded that there had been a violation of the Belgian Data Protection Act, but since the Privacy Commission does not have the authority to impose sanctions for the violation, it referred the case to the prosecutor’s office to initiate criminal proceedings. The Privacy Commission commented that this is the first time that it has referred a data breach case to the Public Prosecutor.

On December 12, 2012, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) released an accountability self-assessment tool designed to help organizations evaluate their internal privacy programs and practices. The tool is the product of the Global Accountability Project for which the Centre serves as Secretariat.

On November 22, 2012, the Brussels-based publication European Voice published an editorial by U.S. Department of Commerce General Counsel Cameron Kerry entitled Avoiding a Data Divide Between the US and the EU. The article notes the importance of continued collaboration between the European Union and the United States as both assess their respective privacy frameworks to ensure that any changes encourage enhanced trade and strong economic growth, but also contain robust protections for consumers. Mr. Kerry’s editorial emphasizes the need to foster global privacy ...

On December 3, 2012, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (the “Centre”) at Hunton & Williams will co-host a special International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) KnowledgeNet meeting in Brussels, Belgium. The meeting will explore global developments in accountability in the context of the proposed EU Data Protection Regulation and the impact of accountability on data protection management.

Hunton & Williams is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has ranked the firm in “Band 2” in its 2012 Chambers Europe guide for TMT: Information Technology: Belgium. Brussels managing partner Wim Nauwelaerts was recognized for his “very straightforward” and “no-nonsense approach.”

On February 16, 2012, the European Court of Justice held in the SABAM vs. Netlog case (C-360/10) that imposing an obligation on social networks to install a “general filtering system” to prevent all users from sharing copyrighted music is disproportionate to the extent that such filters may infringe on user privacy rights or block lawful communications. SABAM, a Belgian copyright association, had filed an injunction against social network provider Netlog that would have required Netlog to install filtering systems to prevent copyright infringements by Netlog users. The Belgian court deciding on the injunction requested a preliminary ruling from the ECJ.

On July 13, 2011, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) signed a Protocol with the Ministry of Justice which significantly simplifies the authorization procedure for binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) under Belgian law.  The Protocol was just made public on the Belgian DPA's website. 

On March 16, 2011, a meeting of the “European Privacy Platform” group of the European Parliament was held in Brussels.  The meeting provided important insights into the likely structure and content of proposed revisions to the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC that the European Commission has been working on for the past several months.

Earlier this month, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its December 15, 2010 Recommendation on Mobile Mapping (Recommandation d’initiative en matière de Mobile Mapping, or “the Recommendation”).  The Recommendation defines Mobile Mapping as “technology by which a vehicle equipped with a camera and/or a scanner can digitally record all data on a specific road, including by taking 360° photos.”  The scope of the Recommendation covers not only applications such as Google Street View, but also other types of Mobile Mapping such as mapping by public authorities, mapping for tourism, real estate applications and GPS navigation mapping.

On 2 March 2009, a Belgian Criminal court (Tribunal correctionnel de Termonde, No. DE 20.95.16/08/25) fined Yahoo! Inc., €55,000 ($71,745) for refusing to disclose to a Belgian Public Prosecutor the personal data of its e-mail users who were under criminal investigation for fraud. The Criminal court also imposed a daily penalty fee of €10,000 ($13,045) in a case of non-compliance with the judgment.  This decision was reached despite Yahoo!’s argument that Belgian law did not apply because the company does not maintain a legal entity in Belgium and does not store any customer data in Belgium.