As specified in Article 45(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the adoption of an adequacy decision has to be based on a comprehensive analysis of the third country's legal order, with respect to both the rules applicable to the data importers and the limitations and safeguards as regards access to personal data by public authorities. The assessment has to determine whether the third country in question guarantees a level of protection "essentially equivalent" to that ensured within the European Union (recital 104 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679). As clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union, this does not require an identical level of protection (2). In particular, the means to which the third country in question has recourse may differ from the ones employed in the European Union, as long as they prove, in practice, effective for ensuring an adequate level of protection (3). The adequacy standard therefore does not require a point-to-point replication of Union rules. Rather, the test lies in whether, through the substance of privacy rights and their effective implementation, supervision and enforcement, the foreign system as a whole delivers the required level of protection (4).

Like EU data protection law, the APPI grants individuals a number of enforceable rights. This includes the right to access ('disclosure'), rectification and erasure as well as the right to object ('utilisation cease').

According to Article 28(3) of the APPI, if the requested data does not exist, or where the PIHBO concerned decides not to grant access to the retained data, it is required to inform the individual without delay.

The Commission has also assessed the limitations and safeguards, including the oversight and individual redress mechanisms available in Japanese law as regards the collection and subsequent use of personal data transferred to business operators in Japan by public authorities for public interest, in particular criminal law enforcement and national security purposes ("government access"). In this respect, the Japanese government has provided the Commission with official representations, assurances and commitments signed at the highest ministerial and agency level that are contained in Annex II to this Decision.

As an exercise of public authority, government access in Japan must be carried out in full respect of the law (legality principle). In this regard, the Constitution of Japan contains provisions limiting and framing the collection of personal data by public authorities. As already mentioned with respect to processing by business operators, basing itself on Article 13 of the Constitution which among others protects the right to liberty, the Supreme Court of Japan has recognised the right to privacy and data protection (72). One important aspect of that right is the freedom not to have one's personal information disclosed to a third party without permission (73). This implies a right to the effective protection of personal data against abuse and (in particular) illegal access. Additional protection is ensured by Article 35 of the Constitution on the right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects, which requires from public authorities to obtain a court warrant issued for "adequate cause" (74) in all cases of "searches and seizures". In its judgment of 15 March 2017 (GPS case), the Supreme Court has clarified that this warrant requirement applies whenever the government invades ("enters into") the private sphere in a way that suppresses the individual's will and thus by means of a "compulsory investigation". A judge may only issue such warrant based on a concrete suspicion of crimes, i.e. when provided with documentary evidence based on which the person concerned by the investigation can be considered as having committed a criminal offence (75). Consequently, Japanese authorities have no legal authority to collect personal information by compulsory means in situations where no violation of the law has yet occurred (76), for example in order to prevent a crime or other security threat (as is the case for investigations on grounds of national security).

Under the reservation of law principle, any data collection as part of a coercive investigation must be specifically authorised by law (as reflected, for instance, in Article 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CCP") regarding the compulsory collection of information for the purposes of a criminal investigation). This requirement applies also to access to electronic information.

The Constitution also guarantees the right of access to the courts (Article 32) and the right to sue the State for redress in the case where an individual has suffered damage through the illegal act of a public official (Article 17).

Japanese law contains a number of limitations on the access and use of personal data for criminal law enforcement purposes as well as oversight and redress mechanisms that provide sufficient safeguards for that data to be effectively protected against unlawful interference and the risk of abuse.

As regards the interception of communications, Article 3 of the Wiretapping Act authorises such measures only under strict requirements. In particular, the public authorities have to obtain a prior court warrant that may only be issued for the investigation of specific serious crimes (listed in the Annex to the Act) (85) and when it is "extremely difficult to identify the criminal or clarify the situations/details of the perpetration by any other ways" (86). Under Article 5 of the Wiretapping Act, the warrant is issued for a limited period of time and additional conditions may be imposed by the judge. Moreover, the Wiretapping Act provides for a number of further guarantees, such as for instance the necessary attendance of witnesses (Articles 12, 20), the prohibition to wiretap the communications of certain privileged groups (e.g. doctors, lawyers) (Article 15), the obligation to terminate the wiretapping if it is no longer justified, even within the period of validity of the warrant (Article 18), or the general requirement to notify the individual concerned and allow access to the records within thirty days after the wiretapping has been terminated (Articles 23, 24).

Second, given that redress will naturally have to be sought abroad in a foreign system and in a foreign language, in order to facilitate redress for EU individuals whose personal data is transferred to business operators in Japan and then accessed by public authorities, the Japanese government has made use of its powers to create a specific mechanism, administered and supervised by PPC, for handling and resolving complaints in this field. That mechanism builds on the cooperation obligation imposed on Japanese public authorities under the APPI and the special role of the PPC with respect to international data transfers from third countries under Article 6 of the APPI and the Basic Policy (as established by the Japanese government through Cabinet Order). The details of this mechanism are set out in the official representations, assurances and commitments received from the Japanese government and attached to this Decision as Annex II. The mechanism is not subject to any standing requirement and is open to any individual, independently of whether (s)he is suspected or accused of a criminal offence.

This includes making use of the procedural rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For instance, "[w]here the evaluation reveals that an individual is a suspect in a criminal case, the PPC will inform the individual about that fact" (123) as well as the possibility pursuant to Article 259 of the CCP to ask the prosecution to be notified once the latter has decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. Also, if the evaluation reveals that a case involving the personal information of the individual has been opened and that the case is concluded, the PPC will inform the individual that the case record can be inspected pursuant to Article 53 of the CCP (and Article 4 of the Act on Final Criminal Case Records). Gaining access to his/her case record is important as it will help the individual to better understand the investigation carried out against him/her and thus to prepare an eventual court action (e.g. a damages claim) in case (s)he considers his/her data was unlawfully collected or used.

According to the Japanese authorities, there is no law in Japan permitting compulsory requests for information or "administrative wiretapping" outside criminal investigations. Hence, on national security grounds information may only be obtained from an information source that can be freely accessed by anyone or by voluntary disclosure. Business operators receiving a request for voluntary cooperation (in the form of disclosure of electronic information) are under no legal obligation to provide such information (124).

Moreover, the Commission considers that, taken as a whole, the oversight mechanisms and redress avenues in Japanese law enable infringements by recipient PIHBOs to be identified and punished in practice and offer legal remedies to the data subject to obtain access to personal data relating to him/her and, eventually, the rectification or erasure of such data.

Therefore, the Commission should on an on-going basis monitor the situation as regards the legal framework and actual practice for the processing of personal data as assessed in this Decision, including compliance by the Japanese authorities with the representations, assurances and commitments contained in Annex II. To facilitate this process, the Japanese authorities are expected to inform the Commission of material developments relevant to this Decision, both as regards the processing of personal data by business operators and the limitations and safeguards applicable to access to personal data by public authorities. This should include any decisions adopted by the PPC under Article 24 of the APPI recognising a third country as providing an equivalent level of protection to the one guaranteed in Japan.

To this end, this Decision should be subject to a first review within two years after its entry into force. Following that first review, and depending on its outcome, the Commission will decide in close consultation with the Committee established under Article 93(1) of the GDPR whether the two-year-cycle should be maintained. In any case, the subsequent reviews should take place at least every four years (151). The review should cover all aspects of the functioning of this Decision, and in particular the application of the Supplementary Rules (with special attention paid to protections afforded in case of onward transfers), the application of the rules on consent, including in case of withdrawal, the effectiveness of the exercise of individual rights, as well as the limitations and safeguards with respect to government access, including the redress mechanism as set out in Annex II to this Decision. It should also cover the effectiveness of oversight and enforcement, as regards the rules applicable to both PIHBOs and in the area of criminal law enforcement and national security.

To perform the review, the Commission should meet with the PPC, accompanied, where appropriate, by other Japanese authorities responsible for government access, including relevant oversight bodies. The participation in this meeting should be open to representatives of the members of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). In the framework of the Joint Review, the Commission should request the PPC to provide comprehensive information on all aspects relevant for the adequacy finding, including on the limitations and safeguards concerning government access (152). The Commission should also seek explanations on any information relevant for this Decision that it has received, including public reports by Japanese authorities or other stakeholders in Japan, the EDPB, individual DPAs, civil society groups, media reports, or any other available source of information.