Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No.181 - Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows

Declarations in force as of today
Status as of 29/07/2017

Andorra

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 6 May 2008 - Or. Fr.

In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Additional Protocol, Andorra designates the "Agència Andorrana de Protecció de Dades" as the authority competent for controlling and ensuring compliance with the measures in its domestic law giving effect to the Chapters II and III of the Convention.
Period covered: 01/09/2008 -
Articles concerned : 1


Austria

Objection contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Austria, dated 13 June 2017, registered at the Secretariat General on 15 June 2017 - Or. Engl.

The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows, adopted on 8 November 2001. It welcomes the ratification of the Protocol by Turkey as a significant step for the promotion of data protection. However, as a member State of the European Union, Austria opposes the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey which describes another member State, the Republic of Cyprus, as a defunct entity.
Period covered: 15/06/2017 -
Articles concerned : -


Bulgaria

Declaration contained in a note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Bulgaria, dated 5 July 2010, deposited simultaneously with the instrument of ratification on 8 July 2010 Or. Engl.

In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Additional Protocol, Bulgaria declares the following:

a. The supervisory authority under Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Additional Protocol is the Commission for Protection of Personal Data;
b. The Commission for Protection of Personal Data is an independent state authority which exercises the protection of individuals in processing of their personal data and in providing the access to these data;
c. The Commission for Protection of Personal Data passes decisions to complaints submitted by individuals concerning violation of their rights with regard to the processing of personal data;
d. The decisions of the Commission for Protection of Personal Data are subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court;
e. The transfer of personal data to another State is admitted only if it ensures an adequate level of protection of the personal data on its territory.
Period covered: 01/11/2010 -
Articles concerned : 1


Cyprus

Objection contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Cyprus, dated 6 December 2016, registered at the Secretariat General on 23 January 2017 - Or. Engl.

The Republic of Cyprus has examined the Declaration deposited by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Regarding Supervisory Authorities and Transborder Data Flows (ETS No. 181), dated 11 July 2016 and registered at the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe on 13 July 2016.

The Republic of Turkey declares that its ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Regarding Supervisory Authorities and Transborder Data Flows neither amounts to any form of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, as party to that Protocol, nor should it imply any obligation on the part of the Republic of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Protocol.

In the view of the Republic of Cyprus, the content and purported effect of this Declaration makes it tantamount in its essence to a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol. By such Declaration, the Republic of Turkey purports to evade its obligations under the Protocol vis-à-vis another equal and sovereign State Party, namely the Republic of Cyprus. Indeed, the Declaration prevents the realization of cooperation between State Parties foreseen by the Protocol.

The Republic of Cyprus therefore strongly rejects the aforesaid Declaration made by the Republic of Turkey and considers such declaration to be null and void. The aforementioned objections by the Republic of Cyprus shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol, in their entirety, between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.

Regarding the Republic of Turkey’s pretension, as expressed in the same Declaration, that ”the Republic of Cyprus is defunct and that there is no single authority which in law or in fact is competent to represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots and consequently Cyprus as a whole“, the Republic of Cyprus would like to remind of the following:

Despite, being, through binding international agreements, a guarantor of ”the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus“ (Article II of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee), the Republic of Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues since then occupying 36.2% of the territory of the Republic.

The illegality of such aggression was made manifested by the U.N. Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Resolution 541’s operative paragraph 2 considers “the declaration [of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus] as legally invalid and “calls for its withdrawal”. Paragraph 6 then “calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus” and further at par. 7 “calls upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus”. Resolution 550, operative para. 2, also ”condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid, and calls for their immediate withdrawal”. Para. 3 then “reiterates the call upon all States not to recognize the purported state of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity”.

The European Court of Human Rights additionally, in its Judgment of 10th May 2001 on the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus v. Turkey, found, at para. 77, that Turkey, which has ”effective control over northern Cyprus“, is responsible for securing all human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and for violations of such rights by her own soldiers or officials, or by the local administration, which are imputable to Turkey. The responsibilities of the occupying power emanate from international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Turkey is responsible for the policies and actions of the “TRNC” because of the effective control she exercises through her army. Her responsibility is engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration, which survives by virtue of Turkish military and other support (Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, 10 May 2001, at pp. 20-21, reiterating Loizidou). From the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Security Council Resolutions on Cyprus, it is evident that the international community does not regard the “TRNC” (Turkey’s subordinate local administration in occupied Cyprus, condemned in the strongest terms by the Security Council ) as a State under international law (Cyprus v. Turkey, 10 May 2001, para. 61). In contrast, the Republic of Cyprus has repeatedly been held to be the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus, contrary to Turkey’s assertions about that Government, which Turkey calls “the Greek Cypriot Administration” with pretences “to represent the defunct Republic”. The Turkish assertions constitute a propaganda ploy to divert attention from Turkey’s responsibility for the violations in occupied Cyprus. Turkey’s assertions and her assorted objections to the Republic of Cyprus’ authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and her claims on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and the “TRNC”, have repeatedly been rejected by the international community and relevant judicial bodies where such claims were fully argued and then rejected in Cyprus’s pleadings. Misrepresentations about the treatment of Turkish Cypriots by the Government of Cyprus were made. (These claims were repeated in Turkey’s current Declaration). In fact, the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission accepted Cyprus arguments and refutation of Turkish assertions and exaggerations about the period prior to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in July 1974. It refused to pronounce on Turkey’s version of the ejection of Turkish Cypriots from offices of State (there was in fact a Turkish boycott).

It is now time for the relevant pronouncement in Resolutions and the decisions therein, as well as in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to be heard and acted upon. The Court itself insisted in its 12 May 2014 Just Satisfaction Judgment that this must happen once the Court had spoken (Cyprus v. Turkey, p. 23 Joint Concurring Judgment of nine Judges). It should be emphasized that, as recently as 26 July 2016 (Security Council Resolution 2300), the Security Council reaffirmed all its relevant Resolutions on Cyprus, having, over several decades, reiterated their content.

Nevertheless, the Republic of Turkey, not only flagrantly holds in contempt all relevant U.N. Resolutions, International Law rules and the U.N. Charter on the matter, but furthermore she continues violating international legality, by systematically questioning the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and further promoting the illegal secessionist entity in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, including through declarations, as the one at hand.
Period covered: 23/01/2017 -
Articles concerned : -


Denmark

Declaration contained in the instrument of approval registered at the Secretariat General on 16 March 2015 - Or. Engl.

The Kingdom of Denmark declares that until further notice, the Convention shall not apply to Greenland or to the Faroe Islands.
Period covered: 01/07/2015 -
Articles concerned : -


Germany

Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Germany, dated 26 February 2003, confirming the declaration made at the time of signature on 8 November 2001, handed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 12 March 2003 - Or. Engl./Germ.

Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Additional Protocol (as well as paragraph 2 of its Preamble) provides that supervisory authorities shall exercise their functions in complete independence.

The Federal Republic of Germany recalls its statement made at the meeting of 6 to 8 June 2000 of the Consultative Committee, set up by virtue of Article 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, that the existing practice for supervising data protection in Germany meets the requirements of Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Additional Protocol because the supervisory authorities responsible for data protection - even where they are incorporated in a hierarchical administrative structure - exercise their functions in complete independence.
Period covered: 01/07/2004 -
Articles concerned : 1


Greece

Objection contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Greece, dated 30 May 2017, registered at the Secretariat General on 1 June 2017 - Or. Engl.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the Declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification, on 11 July 2016, of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows, which raises grave concerns both from a political and a legal point of view.

This declaration is politically unacceptable to the extent that a Member State of the United Nations and other regional organisations, such as the European Union and the Council of Europe, is designated as defunct, contrary to the relevant decisions and resolutions of these organisations.

Likewise, this declaration is problematic from the legal point of view in so far as it provides that the signing/ratification by Turkey of the above-mentioned Additional Protocol should not imply any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Protocol. In fact, this statement amounts to a reservation, as it purports to exclude the application of the Protocol in its entirety between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus. Such a reservation, however, is against the object and purpose of this Protocol.

Furthermore, the above Turkish reservation in so far as it relates to a Protocol of the Council of Europe dealing with the endowment of individuals with rights, is incompatible with the principle of inter-State reciprocity has no place in the context of human rights treaties.

In light of the above, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers the aforesaid reservation of Turkey impermissible as contrary to the object and purpose of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows as well as of the Convention itself.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the said Protocol.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey.
Articles concerned : -


Netherlands

Declaration contained in the instrument of acceptance deposited on 8 September 2004 - Or. Engl.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the Protocol for the Kingdom in Europe.
Period covered: 01/01/2005 -
Articles concerned : -

Communication contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands, dated 27 September 2010, registered at the Secretariat General on 28 September 2010 – Or. Engl.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands currently consists of three parts : the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The Netherlands Antilles consists of the islands of Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.

With effect from 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles will cease to exist as a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. From that date onwards, the Kingdom will consist of four parts: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Curaçao and Sint Maarten will enjoy internal self-government within the Kingdom, as Aruba and, up to 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles do.

These changes constitute a modification of the internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands will accordingly remain the subject of international law with which agreements are concluded. The modification of the structure of the Kingdom will therefore not affect the validity of the international agreements ratified by the Kingdom for the Netherlands Antilles: these agreements, including any reservations made, will continue to apply to Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

The other islands that have until now formed part of the Netherlands Antilles – Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba – will become parts of the Netherlands, thus constituting "the Caribbean part of the Netherlands". The agreements that now apply to the Netherlands Antilles will also continue to apply to these islands; however, the Government of the Netherlands will now be responsible for implementing these agreements.

In addition, a number of the agreements that currently apply to the Netherlands are hereby declared applicable, from 10 October 2010, to this Caribbean part of the Netherlands. The agreements concerned are listed in the Annex which also includes a declaration – regarding Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto – on the modification of the internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom.

A status report of the agreements that apply to Curaçao, Sint Maarten and/or the Caribbean part of the Netherlands, including any reservations and further declarations, will be supplied in the near future.

Annex – Treaties extended to the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba) as per 10 October 2010

- European Convention on State Immunity (ETS No. 74)
- Additional Protocol to the European Convention on State Immunity (ETS No. 74A)
- European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (ETS No. 82)
- European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ETS No. 90)
- European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid (ETS No. 92)
- Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108)
- Amendments to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data allowing the European Communities to accede (Strasbourg, 15 June 1999)
- Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (ETS No. 121)
- Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 173)
- Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows (ETS No. 181)
- Protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ETS No. 190)
- Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 191)
- Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).
Period covered: 01/10/2010 -
Articles concerned : -


Portugal

Declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Portugal, dated 6 July 2017, registered at the Secretariat General on 7 July 2017 - Or. Engl.

Opposition of the Portuguese Republic to the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey to the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows, 8 November 2001.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows.

It welcomes the ratification of the Additional Protocol by the Republic of Turkey as a significant step for the strengthening of the promotion of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

Nevertheless, the Portuguese Republic, as a European Union Member State, opposes the declaration of the Republic of Turkey since it describes another EU Member State, the Republic of Cyprus, as a defunct entity.
Period covered: 07/07/2017 -
Articles concerned : -


Spain

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 3 June 2010 - Or. Engl.

If the Additional Protocol were to be extended by the United Kingdom to Gibraltar, Spain would like to make the following declaration:

1. Gibraltar is a non-autonomous territory whose international relations come under the responsibility of the United Kingdom and which is subject to a decolonisation process in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

2. The authorities of Gibraltar have a local character and exercise exclusively internal competences which have their origin and their foundation in a distribution and attribution of competences performed by the United Kingdom in compliance with its internal legislation, in its capacity as sovereign State on which the mentioned non-autonomous territory depends.

3. As a result, the eventual participation of the Gibraltarian authorities in the application of this Protocol will be understood as carried out exclusively as part of the internal competences of Gibraltar and cannot be considered to modify in any way what was established in the two previous paragraphs.
Period covered: 01/10/2010 -
Articles concerned : -


Turkey

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 July 2016 - Or. Engl.

In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Additional Protocol, the Republic of Turkey designates the Personal Data Protection Council as the authority competent for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the measures in its domestic law giving effect to the principles stated in the Chapters II and III of the Convention and in the Additional Protocol.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : 1

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 11 July 2016 - Or. Engl.

Turkey declares that its signing/ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows (ETS No. 181) neither amounts to any form of recognition of the Greek Cypriot Administration’s pretention to represent the defunct “Republic of Cyprus” as party to the Protocol, nor should it imply any obligations on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the so-called Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Protocol.

“The Republic of Cyprus” was founded as a Partnership State in 1960 by Greek and Turkish Cypriots in accordance with international treaties. This partnership was destroyed by the Greek Cypriot side when it unlawfully seized the state by forcibly ejecting all Turkish Cypriot members in all the state organs in 1963. Eventually, Turkish Cypriots who were excluded from the Partnership State in 1963 have organized themselves under their territorial boundaries and exercise governmental authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty. There is no single authority which in law or in fact is competent to represent jointly the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots and consequently Cyprus as a whole. Thus, the Greek Cypriots cannot claim authority, jurisdiction or sovereignty over the Turkish Cypriots who have equal status or over the entire Island of Cyprus.
Period covered: 01/11/2016 -
Articles concerned : -


United Kingdom

Declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, dated 8 November 2001, handed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe at the time of signature of the instrument, on 8 November 2001 - Or. Engl.

The Government of the United Kingdom declares that the United Kingdom's signature of the Additional Protocol is extended to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man, being territories for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible.
Articles concerned : -


Source : Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int - * Disclaimer.