44. Recalls that Directive 95/46/EC also provides that the adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country is to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or set of such operations; recalls likewise that the said Directive also equips the Commission with implementing powers to declare that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection in the light of the criteria laid down by Directive 95/46/EC; recalls that Directive 95/46/EC also empowers the Commission to dec ...[+++]lare that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection;

43. Recalls that Directive 95/46/EC also provides that the adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country is to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or set of such operations; recalls likewise that the said Directive also equips the Commission with implementing powers to declare that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection in the light of the criteria laid down by Directive 95/46/EC; recalls that Directive 95/46/EC also empowers the Commission to dec ...[+++]lare that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection;

46. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess without delay whether the adequate level of protection of the New Zealand Privacy Act and of the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, as declared by Commission Decisions 2013/65/EU and 2002/2/EU, has been affected by the involvement of those countries’ national intelligence agencies in the mass surveillance of EU citizens, and, if necessary, to take appropriate measures to suspend or reverse the adequacy decisions; also calls on the Commission to assess the situation for other countries that have received an adequacy rating ...[+++]; expects the Commission to report to Parliament on its findings on the above-mentioned countries by December 2014 at the latest;

45. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess without delay whether the adequate level of protection of the New Zealand Privacy Act and of the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, as declared by Commission Decisions 2013/65 and 2/2002 of 20 December 2001, has been affected by the involvement of those countries’ national intelligence agencies in the mass surveillance of EU citizens, and, if necessary, to take appropriate measures to suspend or reverse the adequacy decisions; also calls on the Commission to assess the situation for other countries that have received an a ...[+++]dequacy rating; expects the Commission to report to Parliament on its findings on the above-mentioned countries by December 2014 at the latest;

The imposition of such a right in all Member States meets the need for providing creators with an adequate and standard level of protection.

Commission Decisions attesting to the adequate level of protection of personal data to a number of third countries on the basis of Art. 25 (6): the Commission has so far recognized Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Canada (commercial organisations), Switzerland, Faeroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Uruguay and the US Department of Commerce's Safe Harbour Privacy Principles as providing adequate protection.