Partijen en gegevens

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. ’

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.

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.

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

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:

The Kingdom of Denmark declares that until further notice, the Convention shall not apply to Greenland or to the Faroe Islands.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)