CIPP/E Study Guide
IAPP Training · Module 7 - BoK III.D

Module 7 · Adequacy decisions & the Schrems/DPF saga

An adequacy decision is a European Commission finding that a third country's laws provide essentially equivalent protection - so transfers there need no additional safeguards. The course lists adequate countries including Andorra, Argentina, Canada (PIPEDA, commercial), Japan, the UK, Uruguay and US organisations in the EU–US Data Privacy Framework. Two landmark CJEU rulings shaped the US picture: Schrems I (2015) killed Safe Harbor; Schrems II (16 July 2020) killed the Privacy Shield. The Commission's DPF adequacy decision followed on 10 July 2023.

An adequacy decision is the cleanest route: the European Commission examines a third country's laws and, if protection is essentially equivalent, transfers there need no additional safeguards. The decision can be reviewed and revoked.

  • Adequate countries (per the course): Andorra, Argentina, Canada (PIPEDA, commercial), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, the UK (GDPR and LED), the US (organisations in the EU–US Data Privacy Framework), and Uruguay.
  • Canada's adequacy is limited to PIPEDA / commercial activity.
  • US adequacy is limited to organisations that self-certify to the DPF - it is not blanket adequacy for the whole US.
Timeline: Safe Harbor → Schrems I → Privacy Shield → Schrems II → DPF
DateEventWhat happened
Pre-2015Safe Harbor in forceUS self-certification framework for EU–US transfers
2015Schrems ICJEU strikes down Safe Harbor - it did not limit US government access for national security
2016Privacy Shield adoptedReplacement adequacy framework for EU–US transfers
16 July 2020Schrems IICJEU invalidates Privacy Shield (surveillance not strictly necessary/proportionate, Art 52 Charter; no actionable judicial redress, Art 47 Charter). SCCs remain valid but need a case-by-case assessment
March 2022DPF announcedEU and US announce agreement in principle
10 July 2023DPF adequacy decisionCommission adopts adequacy for US organisations in the DPF
12 Oct 2023UK Extension to DPFUK–US data bridge
15 Sept 2024Swiss–US DPFSwitzerland recognises the DPF

Why Privacy Shield fell (Schrems II): US surveillance was not limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate (Art 52 Charter), and EU data subjects lacked actionable judicial redress (Art 47 Charter). The DPF answers this by limiting US intelligence access to what is necessary and proportionate, adding oversight, and creating a two-tier redress system including the Data Protection Review Court.

Brexit / UK

The UK left the EU on 31 Jan 2020 (transition to 31 Dec 2020). The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (24 Dec 2020) bridged transfers; the EU adopted a UK adequacy decision (28 June 2021) under the GDPR and LED - but it excludes immigration-control data. UK GDPR is the GDPR grandfathered into UK law, supplemented by the Data Protection Act 2018.

Key terms - quick answers

What is “Adequacy decision”?
A European Commission determination that a third country's protection is essentially equivalent to the EU's, removing the need for extra transfer safeguards.
What is “Safe Harbor”?
The original US–EU self-certification framework, struck down by the CJEU in Schrems I (2015).
What is “Schrems I”?
2015 CJEU ruling invalidating Safe Harbor because it did not limit US government access for national security.
What is “Privacy Shield”?
Safe Harbor's replacement, invalidated by Schrems II in 2020 for the same surveillance-redress reasons.