There was broad agreement that a system of “external oversight” in the form of an independent authority is a necessary feature of a data protection compliance system. Another important step that the parties could take would be to include in their framework agreement a clause that would require them to apply certain methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation and arbitration, in the event of a serious conflict. A framework agreement is not an interim agreement. It is more detailed than a statement of principle, but less than a full-fledged contract. Its aim is to find the fundamental compromises necessary for the parties to develop and conclude a comprehensive agreement that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace.  Following revelations about mass global surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK`s General Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), provisions on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US have been put to the test. Serious doubts have been raised about the adequacy of (previous) agreements, including the European Commission`s “Safe Harbor” adequacy decision, EU-US PNR agreements, etc., including agreements (including mutual legal assistance contracts, GwG) for the transfer of law enforcement data (LEA) in EU Member States and EU judicial and police cooperation institutions such as Europol or Eurodac expressed. on the Lea in the United States. One of the results of this review was the start of a dialogue between the EU and the US with a view to adopting a new agreement on the latter types of data exchange. This new agreement was intended to cover the entire exchange of data under one of the special agreements: it would be a “framework agreement” which would not itself constitute a new legal basis for such an exchange of data, but would place the exchange between existing (and all future) data transmission agreements under a new transversal framework and principles.
in particular new remedies for individuals whose data is protected by EU law (including the Charter). It would also be essential for such a review to be carried out in a fully open and transparent manner and presented to the public, as well as to national and European parliaments and other authorities, giving the European Parliament and the public unrestricted access to facts relating to the functioning of the agreement and to the public. It was outrageous that such an important agreement had been negotiated in secret. It certainly should not be verified and extended in secret (or near-secret). The mere publication of the “results” of the revision, as proposed in subsection (2), is not good enough. Recognising that certain existing agreements between the Parties concerning the processing of personal data justify such agreements providing an adequate level of data protection within the framework of those agreements, the Parties reiterate that this Agreement should not be interpreted in such a way as to modify, condition or reject such agreements; Noting, however, that the obligations set out in Article 19 of this Agreement with respect to judicial remedies would apply to all transmissions falling within the scope of this Agreement and that this is without prejudice to the future consideration or amendment of such agreements, in accordance with their terms. . . .