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).

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).

As regards specifically the right to data protection, Chapter III, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the APPI lays down general principles covering all sectors, including the public sector. In particular, Article 3 of the APPI provides that all personal information must be handled in accordance with the principle of respect for the personality of individuals. Once personal information, including as part of electronic records, has been collected ("obtained") by public authorities (78), its handling is governed by the Act on the Protection of Personal Information held by Administrative Organs ("APPIHAO") (79). This includes in principle (80) also the processing of personal information for criminal law enforcement or national security purposes. Among others, the APPIHAO provides that public authorities: (i) may only retain personal information to the extent this is necessary for carrying out their duties; (ii) shall not use such information for an "unjust" purpose or disclose it to a third person without justification; (iii) shall specify the purpose and not change that purpose beyond what can reasonably be considered as relevant for the original purpose (purpose limitation); (iv) shall in principle not use or provide a third person with the retained personal information for other purposes and, if they consider this necessary, impose restrictions on the purpose or method of use by third parties; (v) shall endeavour to ensure the correctness of the information (data quality); (vi) shall take the necessary measures for the proper management of the information and to prevent leakage, loss or damage (data security); and (vii) shall endeavour to properly and expeditiously process any complaints regarding the processing of the information (81).

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).

Within the limits of their competence, public authorities may also collect electronic information based on requests for voluntary disclosure. This refers to a non-compulsory form of cooperation where compliance with the request cannot be enforced (88), thus relieving the public authorities from the duty of obtaining a court warrant.

Aside from these limitations for the exercise of public authority, business operators themselves are expected to check ("confirm") the necessity and "rationality" of the provision to a third party (99). This includes the question whether they are prevented by law from cooperating. Such conflicting legal obligations may in particular follow from confidentiality obligations such as Article 134 of the Penal Code (concerning the relationship between a doctor, lawyer, priest, etc. and his/her client). Also, "any person engaged in the telecommunication business shall, while in office, maintain the secrets of others that have come to be known with respect to communications being handled by the telecommunication carrier" (Article 4(2) of the Telecommunication Business Act). This obligation is backed-up by the sanction stipulated in Article 179 of the Telecommunication Business Act, according to which any person that has violated the secrecy of communications being handled by a telecommunications carrier shall be guilty of a criminal offence and punished by imprisonment with labour of up to two years, or to a fine of not more than one million yen (100). While this requirement is not absolute and in particular allows for measures infringing the secrecy of communications that constitute "justifiable acts" within the meaning of Article 35 of the Penal Code (101), this exception does not cover the response to non-compulsory requests by public authorities for the disclosure of electronic information pursuant to Article 197(2) of the CCP.

In addition to ex officio oversight, individuals also have several possibilities for obtaining individual redress, both through independent authorities (such as the Prefectural Public Safety Commissions or the PPC) and the Japanese courts.

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.

Under the mechanism, an individual who suspects that his/her data transferred from the European Union has been collected or used by public authorities in Japan (including those responsible for criminal law enforcement) in violation of the applicable rules can submit a complaint to the PPC (individually or though his/her data protection authority within the meaning of Article 51 of the GDPR). The PPC will be under an obligation to handle the complaint and in a first step inform the competent public authorities, including the relevant oversight bodies, thereof. Those authorities are required to cooperate with the PPC, "including by providing the necessary information and relevant material, so that the PPC can evaluate whether the collection or the subsequent use of personal information has taken place in compliance with the applicable rules" (117). This obligation, derived from Article 80 of the APPI (requiring Japanese public authorities to co-operate with PPC), applies in general and hence extends to the review of any investigatory measures taken by such authorities, which moreover have committed to such cooperation through written assurances from the competent ministries and agency heads, as reflected in Annex II.

If the evaluation shows that an infringment of the applicable rules has occurred, "cooperation by the concerned public authorities with the PPC includes the obligation to remedy the violation", which in case of the unlawful collection of personal information covers the deletion of such data. Importantly, this obligation is carried out under the supervision of the PPC which will "confirm, before concluding the evaluation, that the violation has been fully remedied".

In addition to monetary compensation, individuals may under certain conditions also obtain injunctive relief (e.g. the deletion of personal data collected by public authorities) based on their privacy rights under Article 13 of the Constitution (122).

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).

Also, according to the information received only four government entities are empowered to collect electronic information held by Japanese business operators on national security grounds, namely: (i) the Cabinet Intelligence & Research Office (CIRO); (ii) the Ministry of Defence ("MOD"); (iii) the police (both National Police Agency (NPA) (125) and Prefectural Police); and (iv) the Public Security Intelligence Agency ("PSIA"). However, the CIRO never collects information directly from business operators, including by means of interception of communications. Where it receives information from other government authorities in order to provide analysis to the Cabinet, these other authorities in turn have to comply with the law, including the limitations and safeguards analysed in this Decision. Its activities are thus not relevant in a transfer context.

Also, once collected, any personal information retained by public authorities for national security purposes will fall under and thus benefit from the protections under the APPIHAO when it comes to its subsequent storage, use and disclosure (see recital 118).

These oversight mechanisms, which are further strengthened through the possibility for individuals to trigger the intervention of the PPC as an independent supervisory authority (see below section 168), provide adequate guarantees against the risk of abuse by Japanese authorities of their powers in the area of national security, and against any unlawful collection of electronic information.

Finally, on the basis of the available information about the Japanese legal order, including the representations, assurances and commitments from the Japanese government contained in Annex II, the Commission considers that any interference with the fundamental rights of the individuals whose personal data are transferred from the European Union to Japan by Japanese public authorities for public interest purposes, in particular criminal law enforcement and national security purposes, will be limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the legitimate objective in question, and that effective legal protection against such interference exists.

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.

Moreover, in order to allow the Commission to effectively carry out its monitoring function, the Member States should inform the Commission about any relevant action undertaken by the national data protection authorities ("DPAs"), in particular regarding queries or complaints by EU data subjects concerning the transfer of personal data from the European Union to business operators in Japan. The Commission should also be informed about any indications that the actions of Japanese public authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, or for national security, including any oversight bodies, do not ensure the required level of protection.

Member States and their organs are required to take the measures necessary to comply with acts of the Union institutions, as the latter are presumed to be lawful and accordingly produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality. Consequently, a Commission adequacy decision adopted pursuant to Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 is binding on all organs of the Member States to which it is addressed, including their independent supervisory authorities. At the same time, as explained by the Court of Justice in the Schrems judgment (148) and recognised in Article 58(5) of the Regulation, where a DPA questions, including upon a complaint, the compatibility of a Commission adequacy decision with the fundamental rights of the individual to privacy and data protection, national law must provide it with a legal remedy to put those objections before a national court which, in case of doubts, must stay proceedings and make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice (149).

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.

Where, on the basis of the regular and ad hoc checks or any other information available, the Commission concludes that the level of protection afforded by the Japanese legal order can no longer be regarded as essentially equivalent to that in the European Union, it should inform the competent Japanese authorities thereof and request that appropriate measures be taken within a specified, reasonable timeframe. This includes the rules applicable to both business operators and Japanese public authorities responsible for criminal law enforcement or national security. For example, such a procedure would be triggered in cases where onward transfers, including on the basis of 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, will no longer be carried out under safeguards ensuring the continuity of protection within the meaning of Article 44 of the GDPR.

If, after the specified time period, the competent Japanese authorities fail to demonstrate satisfactorily that this Decision continues to be based on an adequate level of protection, the Commission should, in application of Article 45(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, initiate the procedure leading to the partial or complete suspension or repeal of this Decision. Alternatively, the Commission should initiate the procedure to amend this Decision, in particular by subjecting data transfers to additional conditions or by limiting the scope of the adequacy finding only to data transfers for which the continuity of protection within the meaning of Article 44 of the GDPR is ensured.

In particular, the Commission should initiate the procedure for suspension or repeal in case of indications that the Supplementary Rules contained in Annex I are not complied with by business operators receiving personal data under this Decision and/or are not effectively enforced, or that the Japanese authorities fail to comply with the representations, assurances and commitments contained in Annex II to this Decision.

The Commission should also consider initiating the procedure leading to the amendment, suspension or repeal of this Decision if, in the context of the Joint Review or otherwise, the competent Japanese authorities fail to provide the information or clarifications necessary for the assessment of the level of protection afforded to personal data transferred from the European Union to Japan or compliance with this Decision. In this respect, the Commission should take into account the extent to which the relevant information can be obtained from other sources.