The Commission's explanatory communication analyses the consequences of the judgement and sets out the alternative mechanisms for transfers of personal data to the US.

45. Highlights the fact that the most recent case law, and in particular the judgment of the CJEU of 8 April 2014 on data retention, clearly sets out as a legal requirement the demonstration of necessity and proportionality for any measures involving the collection and use of personal data potentially interfering with the right of respect for private and family life and the right to data protection; finds it regrettable that political considerations often undermine compliance with these legal principles in the decision-making process; calls on the Commission to ensure, as part of its Better Regulation agenda, that all EU legislation is ...[+++] of high quality, complies with all the legal standards and case law, and is in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; recommends that the impact assessment of all law-enforcement and security measures involving the use and collection of personal data always includes a necessity and proportionality test;

The General Court erred in its judgment in so far as (i) it was inconsistent with previous judgments handed down on the same question (T-332/06 and C-194/09 P); (ii) when applying Article 107(1) TFEU, it confused two criteria, both necessary to prove the existence of aid, inferring that an advantage was conferred on Alcoa from the mere finding that the resources used were of State origin; (iii) it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons in so far as it failed to observe that the Commission had erred in assuming that Alcoa had obtained an advantage from the measure and had not, therefore, to that end, carried out a proper economic analysis to calcul ...[+++]ate the extent of the advantage in this particular case.

45. Highlights the fact that the most recent case law, and in particular the judgment of the CJEU of 8 April 2014 on data retention, clearly sets out as a legal requirement the demonstration of necessity and proportionality for any measures involving the collection and use of personal data potentially interfering with the right of respect for private and family life and the right to data protection; finds it regrettable that political considerations often undermine compliance with these legal principles in the decision-making process; calls on the Commission to ensure, as part of its Better Regulation agenda, that all EU legislation is ...[+++] of high quality, complies with all the legal standards and case law, and is in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; recommends that the impact assessment of all law-enforcement and security measures involving the use and collection of personal data always includes a necessity and proportionality test;