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).

It results from those provisions, as also confirmed by the PPC, that the process of rendering personal information "anonymous" does not need to be technically irreversible. Pursuant to Article 36(2) of the APPI, business operators handling "anonymously processed personal information" are merely required to prevent re-identification by taking measures to ensure the security of "the descriptions etc. and individual identification codes deleted from personal information used to produce the anonymously processed information, and information relating to a processing method carried out".

Personal data should be processed in a manner that ensures their security, including protection against unauthorized or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage. To that end, business operators should take appropriate technical or organisational measures to protect personal data from possible threats. These measures should be assessed taking into consideration the state of the art and related costs.

This principle is implemented in Japanese law by Article 20 of the APPI, providing that a PIHBO "shall take necessary and appropriate action for the security control of personal data including preventing the leakage, loss or damage of its handled personal data." The PPC Guidelines explain the measures to be taken, including the methods for the establishment of basic policies, data handling rules and various "control actions" (regarding organisational safety as well as human, physical and technological security) (35). In addition, the PPC Guidelines and a dedicated Notice (Appendix 8 on "Contents of the safety management measures that have to be taken") published by the PPC provide more details on measures concerning security incidents involving, for example, the leakage of personal information, as part of the security management measures to be taken by PIHBOs (36).

Furthermore, whenever personal information is handled by employees or sub-contractors, "necessary and appropriate supervision" must be ensured under Articles 20 and 21 of the APPI for security control purposes. Finally, pursuant to Article 83 of the APPI, intentional leakage or theft of personal information is punishable by a sanction of up to one year of imprisonment.

Finally, the APPI creates a framework for the participation of sectoral industry organisations in ensuring a high level of compliance (see Chapter IV, Section 4). The role of such accredited personal information protection organisations (40) is to promote the protection of personal information by supporting businesses through their expertise, but also to contribute to the implementation of safeguards, notably by handling individual complaints and helping to solve related conflicts. To that end, they may request participating PIHBOs, if appropriate, to adopt necessary measures (41). Moreover, in case of data breaches or other security incidents PHIBOs shall in principle inform the PPC as well as the data subject (or the public) and take necessary action, including measures to minimise any damage and to prevent any recurrence of similar incidents (42). While those are voluntary schemes, on 10 August 2017 the PPC had listed 44 organisations, with the largest one, Japan Information Processing and Development Center (JIPDEC), alone counting 15 436 participating business operators (43). Accredited schemes include sector associations such as for instance the Japan Securities Dealers Association, the Japan Association of Car Driving Schools or the Association of Marriage Brokers (44).

Finally, a further safeguard in case of (onward) transfers follows from Articles 20 and 22 of the APPI. According to these provisions, where a third country operator (data importer) acts on behalf of the PIHBO (data exporter), that is as a (sub-) processor, the latter has to ensure supervision over the former as regards security of data processing.

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).

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.

Finally, the PSIA may carry out investigations under the Subversive Activities Prevention Act ("SAPA") and the Act on the Control of Organisations Which Have Committed Acts of Indiscriminate Mass Murder ("ACO") where such investigations are necessary to prepare the adoption of control measures against certain organisations (126). Under both Acts, upon request by the Director-General of the PSIA the Public Security Examination Commission may issue certain "dispositions" (surveillance/prohibitions in the case of the ACO (127), dissolution/prohibitions in the case of the SAPA (128) and in this context the PSIA may carry out investigations (129). According to the information received, these investigations are always conducted on a voluntary basis, meaning that the PSIA may not force an owner of personal information to provide such information (130). Each time, controls and investigations shall be conducted only to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the control purpose and shall not under any circumstances be carried out to "unreasonably" restrict the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution of Japan (Article 3(1) of SAPA/ACO). Moreover, according to Article 3(2) of the SAPA/ACO, the PSIA must under no circumstances abuse such controls, or the investigations carried out to prepare such controls. If a Public Security Intelligence Officer has abused his/her authority under the respective Act by forcing a person to do anything which the person is not required to, or by interfering with the exercise of a person's rights, (s)he may be subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to Article 45 SAPA or Article 42 ACO. Finally, both Acts explicitly prescribe that their provisions, including the powers granted therein, shall "not under any circumstances be subject to an expanded interpretation" (Article 2 of SAPA/ACO).

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).

The collection of personal information for national security purposes is subject to several layers of oversight from the three branches of government.

Finally, as indicated, the PSIA may only carry out investigations to the extent this is necessary with respect to the adoption of a prohibition, dissolution or surveillance disposition under the SAPA/ACO, and for these dispositions the independent (136) Public Security Examination Commission exercises ex ante oversight. In addition, regular/periodic inspections (which in a comprehensive manner look at PSIA's operations) (137) and special internal inspections (138) on the activities of individual departments/offices etc. are carried out by specifically designated inspectors and may lead to instructions to the heads of relevant departments etc. to take corrective or improvement measures.

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.

Moreover, unlike for criminal investigations, individuals (including foreign nationals living abroad) have in principle a right to disclosure (139), correction (including deletion) and suspension of use/provision under the APPIHAO. This being said, the head of the Administrative Organ may refuse disclosure with respect to information "for which there are reasonable grounds […] to find that disclosure is likely to cause harm to national security" (Article 14(iv) APPIHAO) and may even do so without revealing the existence of such information (Article 17 APPIHAO). Likewise, while an individual may request suspension of use or deletion pursuant to Article 36(1)(i) APPIHAO in case the Administrative Organ has obtained the information unlawfully or retains/uses it beyond what is necessary to achieve the specified purpose, the authority may reject the request if it finds that the suspension of use "is likely to hinder the proper execution of the affairs pertaining to the Purpose of Use of the Retained Personal Information due to the nature of the said affairs" (Article 38 APPIHAO). Still, where it is possible to easily separate and exclude portions that are subject to an exception, Administrative Organs are required to grant at least partial disclosure (see e.g. Article 15(1) APPIHAO) (140).

In any event, the Administrative Organ has to take a written decision within a certain period (30 days, which under certain conditions can be extended by an additional 30 days). If the request is rejected, only partially granted, or if the individual for other reasons considers the conduct of the Administrative Organ to be "illegal or unjust", the individual may request administrative review based on the Administrative Complaint Review Act (141). In such a case, the head of the Administrative Organ deciding on the appeal shall consult the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (Articles 42, 43 APPIHAO), a specialised, independent board whose members are appointed by the Prime Minister with consent of both Houses of the Diet. According to the information received, the Review Board may carry out an examination (142) and in this respect request the Administrative Organ to provide the retained personal information, including any classified content, as well as further information and documents. While the ultimate report sent to the complainant as well as the Administrative Organ and made public is not legally binding, it is in almost all cases followed (143). Moreover, the individual has the possibility to challenge the appeal decision in court based on the Administrative Case Litigation Act. This opens the way for judicial control of the use of the national security exception(s), including of whether such an exception has been abused or is still justified.

As is the case for investigations in the area of criminal law enforcement, also in the area of national security individuals may obtain individual redress by directly contacting the PPC. This will trigger the specific dispute resolution procedure that the Japanese government has created for EU individuals whose personal data is transferred under this Decision (see detailed explanations in recitals 141 to 144, 149).

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.

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.

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.

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.