Regulation (EU) 2016/679 sets out the rules for the transfer of personal data from controllers or processors in the European Union to third countries and international organisations to the extent that such transfers fall within its scope. The rules on international transfers of personal data are laid down in Chapter V of that Regulation, more specifically in Articles 44 to 50. The flow of personal data to and from countries outside the European Union is necessary for the expansion of international cooperation and international trade, while guaranteeing that the level of protection afforded to personal data in the European Union is not undermined.

Pursuant to Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the Commission may decide, by means of an implementing act, that a third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within a third country or an international organisation ensure an adequate level of protection. Under this condition, transfers of personal data to that third country, territory, sector or international organisation can take place without the need to obtain any further authorisation, as provided for in Article 45(1) and recital 103 of the Regulation.

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).

This Decision has the effect that transfers from a controller or processor in the European Economic Area (EEA) (7) to such organisations in Japan may take place without the need to obtain any further authorisation. This Decision does not affect the direct application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to such organisations when the conditions of its Article 3 are fulfilled.

As regards the first of those two categories, it is explained in Article 4 of the Cabinet Order and covers four types of exemptions (20). These exemptions pursue similar objectives as those listed in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, notably protection of the data subject ("principal" in the terminology of the APPI) and the freedom of others, national security, public security, criminal law enforcement or other important objectives of general public interest. In addition, it results from the wording of Article 4(1)(i)-(iv) of the Cabinet Order that their application always presupposes a specific risk for one of the protected important interests (21).

Given that "anonymously processed personal information", as defined by the APPI, includes data for which re-identification of the individual is still possible, this could mean that personal data transferred from the European Union might lose part of the available protections through a process that, under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, would be considered a form of "pseudonymisation" rather than "anonymisation" (thus not changing its nature as personal data).

To address that situation, the Supplementary Rules provide for additional requirements applicable only to personal data transferred from the European Union under this Decision. According to Rule (5) of the Supplementary Rules, such personal information shall only be considered "anonymously processed personal information" within the meaning of the APPI "if the personal information handling business operator takes measures that make the de-identification of the individual irreversible for anyone, including by deleting processing method etc. related information". The latter has been specified in the Supplementary Rules as information relating to descriptions and individual identification codes which were deleted from personal information used to produce "anonymously processed personal information", as well as information relating to a processing method applied while deleting these descriptions and individual identification codes. In other terms, the Supplementary Rules require the business operator producing "anonymously processed personal information" to destroy the "key" permitting re-identification of the data. This means that personal data originating from the European Union will fall under the APPI provisions regarding "anonymously processed personal information" only in cases where they would likewise be considered anonymous information under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (22).

When it comes to personal information acquired from another business operator, the PIHBO is, in principle, free to set a new utilisation purpose (28). In order to ensure that, in case of a transfer from the European Union, such a recipient is bound by the purpose for which the data was transferred, Supplementary Rule (3) requires that, in cases "where a [PIHBO] receives personal data from the EU based on an adequacy decision" or such an operator "receives from another [PIHBO] personal data previously transferred from the EU based on an adequacy decision" (onward sharing), the recipient has to "specify the purpose of utilising the said personal data within the scope of the utilisation purpose for which the data was originally or subsequently received". In other words, the rule ensures that in a transfer context the purpose specified pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 continues to determine the processing, and that a change of that purpose at any stage of the processing chain in Japan would require the consent of the EU data subject. While obtaining this consent requires the PIHBO to contact the data subject, where this is not possible the consequence is simply that the original purpose has to be maintained.

As regards transfers from the European Union, personal data will necessarily have been first collected and processed in the EU in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. This will always involve, on the one hand, collection and processing, including for the transfer from the European Union to Japan, on the basis of one of the legal grounds listed in Article 6(1) of the Regulation and, on the other hand, collection for a specific, explicit and legitimate purpose as well as the prohibition of further processing, including by way of a transfer, in a manner that is incompatible with such purpose as laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 6(4) of the Regulation.

Following the transfer, according to Supplementary Rule (3), the PIHBO that will receive the data will have to "confirm" the specific purpose(s) underlying the transfer (i.e. the purpose specified pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and further process that data in line with such purpose(s) (34). This means not only that the initial acquirer of such personal data in Japan but also any future recipient of the data (including a trustee) is bound by the purpose(s) specified under the Regulation.

Furthermore, in case the PIHBO would like to change the purpose as previously specified under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, pursuant to Article 16(1) of the APPI it would have to obtain, in principle, the consent of the data subject. Without that consent, any data processing going beyond the scope necessary for achieving that utilisation purpose would constitute a violation of Article 16(1) that would be enforceable by the PPC and the courts.

Hence, given that under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 a transfer requires a valid legal basis and specific purpose, which are reflected in the utilization purpose "confirmed" under the APPI, the combination of the relevant provisions of the APPI and of Supplementary Rule (3) ensures the continued lawfulness of the processing of EU data in Japan.

"Special care-required personal information" is defined in Article 2(3) of the APPI. That provision refers to "personal information comprising a principal's race, creed, social status, medical history, criminal record, fact of having suffered damage by a crime, or other descriptions etc. prescribed by Cabinet Order as those of which the handling requires special care so as not to cause unfair discrimination, prejudice or other disadvantages to the principal". These categories correspond for a large part to the list of sensitive data under Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, "medical history" corresponds to health data, while "criminal record and the fact of having suffered damage by a crime" are substantially the same as the categories referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The categories referred to in Article 2(3) of the APPI are subject to further interpretation in the Cabinet Order and PPC Guidelines. According to section 2.3 point (8) of the PPC Guidelines, the sub-categories of "medical history" detailed in Article 2(ii) and (iii) of the Cabinet Order are interpreted as covering genetic and biometric data. Also, while the list does not expressly include the terms "ethnic origin" and "political opinion", it does include references to "race" and "creed". As explained in section 2.3 points (1) and (2) of the PPC Guidelines, reference to "race" covers "ethnic ties or ties to a certain part of the world", while "creed" is understood as including both religious and political views.

While the concept of "sensitive" data is inherently a social construct in that it is grounded in cultural and legal traditions, moral considerations, policy choices etc. of a given society, given the importance of ensuring adequate safeguards to sensitive data when transferred to business operators in Japan the Commission has obtained that the special protections afforded to "special care-required personal information" under Japanese law are extended to all categories recognised as "sensitive data" in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. To this end, Supplementary Rule (1) provides that data transferred from the European Union concerning an individual's sex life, sexual orientation or trade-union membership shall be processed by PIHBOs "in the same manner as special care-required personal information within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 3 of the [APPI]".

To ensure continuity of protection in case of personal data transferred from the European Union to Japan under this Decision, Supplementary Rule (4) enhances the level of protection for onward transfers of such data by the PIHBO to a third country recipient. It does so by limiting and framing the bases for international transfers that can be used by the PIHBO as an alternative to consent. More specifically, and without prejudice to the derogations set forth in Article 23(1) of the APPI, personal data transferred under this Decision may be subject to (onward) transfers without consent only in two cases: (i) where the data is sent to a third country which has been recognised by the PPC under Article 24 of the APPI as providing an equivalent level of protection to the one guaranteed in Japan (47); or (ii) where the PIHBO and the third party recipient have together implemented measures providing a level of protection equivalent to the APPI, read together with the Supplementary Rules, by means of a contract, other forms of binding agreements or binding arrangements within a corporate group. The second category corresponds to the instruments used under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to ensure appropriate safeguards (in particular, contractual clauses and binding corporate rules). In addition, as confirmed by the PPC, even in those cases, the transfer remains subject to the general rules applicable to any provision of personal data to a third party under the APPI (i.e. the requirement to obtain consent under Article 23(1) or, alternatively, the information requirement with a possibility to opt out under Article 23(2) of the APPI). In case the data subject cannot be reached with a request for consent or in order to provide the required advance information under Article 23(2) of the APPI, the transfer may not take place.

These rights are subject to three types of restrictions, relating to the individual's own or third parties’ rights and interests (51), serious interference with the PIHBO's business operations (52) as well as cases in which disclosure would violate other laws or regulations (53). The situations in which these restrictions would apply are similar to some of the exceptions applicable under Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which allows for restrictions of the rights of individuals for reasons related to the "protection of the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others" or "other important objectives of general public interest". Although the category of cases in which disclosure would violate "other laws or regulations" may appear broad, laws and regulations providing for limitations in this regard must respect the constitutional right to privacy and may impose restrictions only to the extent that the exercise of this right would "interfere with the public welfare" (54). This requires a balancing of the interests at stake.

Differently from EU law, the APPI and relevant sub-statutory rules do not contain legal provisions specifically addressing the possibility to oppose processing for direct marketing purposes. However, such processing will, under this Decision, take place in the context of a transfer of personal data that was previously collected in the European Union. Under Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the data subject shall always have the possibility to oppose a transfer of data for the purpose of processing for direct marketing. Moreover, as explained in recital 43, under Supplementary Rule (3), a PIHBO is required to process the data received under the Decision for the same purpose for which the data have been transferred from the European Union, unless the data subject consents to change the utilisation purpose.Hence, if the transfer has been made for any purpose other than direct marketing, a PIHBO in Japan will be barred from processing the data for the purpose of direct marketing without consent of the EU data subject.

In any event, as regards personal data that has been collected in the European Union, any decision based on automated processing will typically be taken by the data controller in the Union (which has a direct relationship with the concerned data subject) and is thus subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (56). This includes transfer scenarios where the processing is carried out by a foreign (e.g. Japanese) business operator acting as an agent (processor) on behalf of the EU controller (or as a sub-processor acting on behalf of the EU processor having received the data from an EU controller that collected it) which on this basis then takes the decision. Therefore, the absence of specific rules on automated decision making in the APPI is unlikely to affect the level of protection of the personal data transferred under this Decision.

To the extent such a request is directed at a business operator and concerns personal information, the business operator has to comply with the requirements of the APPI. According to Article 23(1) of the APPI, business operators may disclose personal information to third parties without consent of the individual concerned only in certain cases, including where the disclosure is "based on laws and regulations" (89). In the area of criminal law enforcement, the legal basis for such requests is provided by Article 197(2) of the CCP according to which "private organisations may be asked to report on necessary matters relating to the investigation." Since such an "enquiry sheet" is permissible only as part of a criminal investigation, it always presupposes a concrete suspicion of an already committed crime (90). Moreover, since such investigations are generally carried out by the Prefectural Police, the limitations pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Police Law (91) apply. According to that provision, the activities of the police are "strictly limited" to the fulfilment of their responsibilities and duties (that is to say the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes). Moreover, in performing its duties, the police shall act in an impartial, unprejudiced and fair manner and must never abuse its powers "in such a way as to interfere with the rights and liberties of an individual guaranteed in the Constitution of Japan" (which include, as indicated, the right to privacy and data protection) (92).

With respect to all those redress avenues, the dispute resolution mechanism created by the Japanese government provides that an individual who is still dissatisfied with the outcome of the procedure can address the PPC "which shall inform the individual of the various possibilities and detailed procedures for obtaining redress under Japanese laws and regulations." Moreover, the PPC "will provide the individual with support, including counselling and assistance in bringing any further action to the relevant administrative or judicial body."

As regards MOD, oversight is exercised by the Inspector General's Office of Legal Compliance (IGO) (134) that has been established based on Article 29 of the MOD Establishment Act as an office within the MOD under the supervision of the Minister of Defence (to which it reports) but independent from MOD's operational departments. The IGO has the task of ensuring compliance with laws and regulations as well as the proper execution of duties by MOD officials. Among its powers is the authority to carry out so-called "Defence Inspections", both at regular intervals ("Regular Defence Inspections") and in individual cases ("Special Defence Inspections"), which in the past have also covered the proper handling of personal information (135). In the context of such inspections, the IGO may enter sites (offices) and request the submission of documents or information, including explanations by the Deputy Vice-Minister of the MOD. The inspection is concluded through a report to the Minister of Defence setting out the findings and measures for improvement (the implementation of which can again be checked through further inspections). The report in turn forms the basis for instructions from the Minister of Defence to implement the measures necessary to address the situation; the Deputy Vice-Minister is charged with carrying out such measures and has to report on the follow-up.

The Commission considers that the APPI as complemented by the Supplementary Rules contained in Annex I, together with the official representations, assurances and commitments contained in Annex II, ensure a level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union that is essentially equivalent to the one guaranteed by Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

On this basis, the Commission concludes that the adequacy standard of Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, interpreted in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular in the Schrems judgment (146), is met.

According to the case law of the Court of Justice (147), and as recognized in Article 45(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the Commission should continuously monitor relevant developments in the third country after the adoption of an adequacy decision in order to assess whether Japan still ensures an essentially equivalent level of protection. Such a check is required, in any event, when the Commission receives information giving rise to a justified doubt in that respect.

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).

In application of Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (150), and in the light of the fact that the level of protection afforded by the Japanese legal order may be liable to change, the Commission, following the adoption of this Decision, should periodically check whether the findings relating to the adequacy of the level of protection ensured by Japan are still factually and legally justified.

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.

On duly justified grounds of urgency, such as a risk of serious infringment of data subjects’ rights, the Commission should consider adopting a decision to suspend or repeal this Decision that should apply immediately, pursuant to Article 93(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (153).

The European Parliament has adopted a resolution on a digital trade strategy that calls on the Commission to prioritise and speed up the adoption of adequacy decisions with important trading partners under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, as an important mechanism to safeguard the transfer of personal data from the European Union (155). The European Parliament has also adopted a resolution on the adequacy of the protection of personal data afforded by Japan (156).