Belgian Data Protection Authority Outlaws Transfer of Banking Records to US Department of Treasury
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.03.06
In a twenty-seven page report (the Report) of September 27, 2006, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the Belgian DPA) opined that the transfer of banking records by the financial messaging service provider SWIFT to the US Department of Treasury (Treasury) violates European and Belgian data protection laws. The Belgian DPA had taken the initiative to audit SWIFT at the beginning of July 2006 after news had leaked in to the media that Treasury may access banking records processed by SWIFT for terrorism-fighting purposes. The Report confirms (after the May 2006 decision of the European Court of Justice annulling the legal framework to transfer airline passengers records to the US) once more the delicate position in which international businesses can find themselves as they attempt to reconcile European privacy laws and US legal requirements.
The Belgian DPA's Report, which was presented to the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (a pan-European privacy watch-dog, consisting of representatives of national DPAs), accuses SWIFT of having committed “assessment faults” when complying with subpoenas issued by Treasury to provide access to banking records. Although the Belgian DPA was of the view that foreign subpoenas standing alone do not provide a sufficient legal basis to transfer personal information from Belgium and/or the EU to the US, it confirmed that SWIFT has a legitimate interest in conducting such transfers. However, the DPA concluded that “the exception measures under US law do not legitimize the secret, systematic, massive and continuous violation of fundamental European data protection principles, given the lack of a clear and; legitimizing; European legal basis.”Thus, while the Report is critical of SWIFT's actions, it indirectly recognizes that companies may disclose personal information to foreign public authorities to comply with valid and enforceable foreign subpoenas, if such disclosures meet the proportionality criterion (which is not further illuminated by the decision). The Report indirectly indicates that the processing of personal information for purposes of complying with a US subpoena also requires a legal basis to transfer such information to the US (such as, for instance, the execution of data transfer agreements, Safe Harbor registration of the data importer, or another exception set forth in the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46).
The Belgian Prime Minister has stated publicly that negotiations between the European authorities and the US authorities are necessary to solve the legal impasse and to ensure that sufficient measures are taken to adequately protect banking records made accessible to Treasury. The Article 29 Working Party considered this matter during its plenary meeting of September 26, 2006 and announced that given the complexity of the case, further review was required with a formal position likely to issue during its next meeting in November.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
Executive Order Tries to Thwart “Onerous” AI State Regulation, Calls for National Framework
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.17.25
The new EU Bioeconomy Strategy: a regulatory framework in transition

