The European Union’s adequacy approach to privacy and international data sharing in health research

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 143-155

  Stoddart, Jennifer ^a   Chan, Benny ^a   Joly, Yann ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EUROPEAN UNION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PRIVACY;

EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PRIVACY;

EID: 85025818165     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1073110516644205     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Summary of Principles Agreed at the First International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing, Bermuda, 25-28 February 1996 (HUGO, 1996), available at (last visited October 9, 2015).
2. The Wellcome Trust, “Sharing Data from Large-Scale Biological Research Projects: A System of Tripartite Responsibility,” Fort Lauderdale, January 2003
3. Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors, “Prepublication data sharing,” Nature 461, no. 7261 (2009): 168-170
4. Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), available at [General Data Protection Regulation].
5. C. Wolf, “Delusions of Adequacy? Examining the Case for Finding the United States Adequate for Cross-Border EUU. S. Data Transfers,” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 43 (2014): 227-257, at
6. W. J. Long and M. P. Quek, “Personal Data Privacy Protection in an Age of Globalization: The US-EU Safe Harbor Compromise,” Journal of European Public Policy 9, no. 3 (2002): 325-344.
7. Data Guidance, “EU: ‘Life Continues’ Despite CJEU Safe Harbor Ruling,” 2015, available at (last visited February 19, 2016).
8. P. Kosseim, E. S. Dove, and C. Baggaley et al., “Building a Data Sharing Model for Global Genomic Research,” Genome Biology 15, no. 8 (2014): 430-436.
9. C. Kuner, Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
10. V. Mayer-Schönberger and K. Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think (London: John Murray, 2013).
11. Teschke et al, “Public Opinions about Participating in Health Research,” Canadian Journal of Public Health 101 (2010): 159-164, at 163.
12. While the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation has adopted its own data-sharing model, fewer jurisdictions have signed on to it. See Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC Privacy Framework, available at (last visited February 19, 2016)
13. G. Greenleaf, “Global Data Privacy Laws 2015: 109 Countries, with European Laws Now a Minority,” Privacy Laws and Business International Report 133 (2015): 1-7, at 6.
14. European Commission, Commission Decision 2003/490/EC of 30 June 2003 Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Adequate Protection of Personal Data in Argentina, available at (last visited February 19, 2016).
15. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 07/2012 of 19 July 2012 on the Level of Protection of Personal Data in the Principality of Monaco, available at (last visited February 19, 2016).
16. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 2/2001 on the Adequacy of the Canadian Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act, available at
17. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 11/2011 on the Level of Protection of Personal Data in New Zealand, available at (last visited February 19, 2016).
18. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “Legal Information Related to PIPEDA: Substantially Similar Provincial Legislation,” available at (last visited February 19, 2016)
19. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Privacy “Legislation in Canada,” available at (last visited February 19, 2016).
20. E. Gratton, “Q: When Is Adequacy Never Adequate? A. When Québec’s Data Protection Law Is Considered ‘Inadequate’ for Europe,” Nymity, Privacy Interviews with Experts, July 2014, available at (last visited May 29, 2015).
21. A. B. Makulilo, “Data Protection Regimes in Africa: Too Far from the European ‘Adequacy’ Standard?” International Data Privacy Law 3, no. 1 (2013): 42-50.
22. K. Pijetlovic, “Fundamental Rights of Athletes in EU Post-Lisbon,” in T. Kerikmäe, Protecting Human Rights in the EU: Controversies and Challenges of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (New York: Springer, 2014): at 183.
23. Consultation in the Context of the Review of the World Anti-Doping Code and Its International Standards,” available at (last visited February 19, 2016).
24. P. Blume, “EU Adequacy Decisions: The Proposed New Possibilities,” International Data Privacy Law 5, no. 1 (2015): 34-39.
25. G. Greenleaf and L. A. Bygrave, “Not Entirely Adequate but Far Away: Lessons from How Europe Sees New Zealand Data Protection,” Privacy Laws and Business International Report 111 (2011): 8-9.
26. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 6/2009 of 1 December 2009 on the Level of Protection of Personal Data in Israel, at 15, available at (last visited February 19, 2016) [Israel Opinion].
27. C. Kuner, Transborder Data Flow and Data Privacy Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013): at 160-165.
28. K. Bamberger and D. K. Mulligan, “Privacy on the Books and on the Ground,” Stanford Law Review 63 (2011): 247-315.
29. P. Hustinx, “EU Data Protection Law: the Review of Directive 95/46/EC and the Proposed General Data Protection Regulation,” course given at the European University Institute’s Academy of European Law, July 2013.
30. C. Kuner, Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013): at 48.
31. European Data Protection Supervisor, Leading by Example: The EDPS Strategy 2015-2019, available at (last visited February 19, 2016) [EDPS Plan].