Print
Download XMLAdditional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Andorra | Yes | No |
| Bulgaria | Yes | No |
| Cabo Verde | Yes | No |
| Denmark | Yes | No |
| Germany | Yes | No |
| Mauritius | Yes | No |
| Russian Federation | Yes | No |
| Spain | Yes | No |
| Türkiye | Yes | Yes |
| United Kingdom | Yes | No |
Andorra
06-05-2008
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.
Bulgaria
08-07-2010
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.
Cabo Verde
19-06-2018
In accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, the Republic of Cabo Verde designates
the following competent authority for co-operation among the Parties:
National Commission of Data Protection (CNDP)
Denmark
16-03-2015
The Kingdom of Denmark declares that until further notice, the Convention shall not apply to Greenland or to the Faroe Islands.
Germany
12-03-2003
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.
Mauritius
17-06-2016
As per Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, the Data Protection
Office is the supervisory authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the measures
in the Mauritian domestic law giving effect to the principles stated in Chapters II
and III of the Convention and in the Additional Protocol. Its functions, exercised
in complete independence are, inter alia, to investigate and intervene, engage in
legal proceedings or bring to the attention of the competent judicial authority violations
of provisions of Mauritian domestic law giving effect to the principles mentioned
in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Protocol. It shall hear claims lodged by any person
concerning the protection of his/her rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to
the processing of personal data within its competence.
Russian Federation
25-03-2022
Depositary communication.
Signatory considered to be suspended as from 16 March 2022.
Spain
03-06-2010
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.
28-04-2022
With regard to the communication that the United Kingdom addressed to the Secretariat
General of the Council of Europe on 29 July 2019, concerning the intention of the
United Kingdom to extend to Gibraltar the application of the Convention for the Protection
of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108),
and notification of which was received by letter from the Secretary General dated
12 July 2019, Spain, recalling that it is a Party to the said Convention, as well
as to the Additional Protocol (ETS No. 181) and to Protocol of amendment (CETS No.
223) thereof, wishes to recall the content of its Declaration of 5 March 2008 and
to make the following statement:
- 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.
- 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 of which the mentioned non-autonomous territory
is dependent.
- As a result, any participation of the Gibraltarian authorities in the application
of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing
of Personal Data 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.
- The procedure foreseen in the Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in
the context of certain international treaties which were adopted by Spain and the
United Kingdom on 19 December 2007 (as well as the Agreed Arrangements relating to
Gibraltar authorities in the context of EU and EC instruments and related treaties,
dated 19 April 2000), apply to this Convention and to the Protocols thereof.
- The application to Gibraltar of this Convention and of the Protocols thereof should
not be interpreted as an acknowledgment of any right or any situation regarding areas
not covered by Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713, concluded between
the Crowns of Spain and of the United Kingdom.
Türkiye
11-07-2016
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.
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.
Objection Cyprus, 23-01-2017
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
paragraph 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.
Objection Greece, 01-06-2017
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 contraty 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.
Objection Austria, 15-06-2017
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.
Objection Portugal, 07-07-2017
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.
United Kingdom
08-11-2001
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.