Article 36 GDPR: Difference between revisions
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
Directive 95/46/EC (the DPD) imposed a general obligation to notify the DPA of an operation which processed personal data. The rationale behind the provision was that the DPAs would conduct an assessment prior to the start of the processing operation and thereby manage the potentially high risks of certain operations. However, this general notification obligation did not always lead to a higher level of protection of personal data, but it produced significant administrative and financial burdens.<ref>Recital 89 GDPR.</ref> | Directive 95/46/EC (the DPD) imposed a general obligation to notify the DPA of an operation which processed personal data. The rationale behind the provision was that the DPAs would conduct an assessment prior to the start of the processing operation and thereby manage the potentially high risks of certain operations. However, this general notification obligation did not always lead to a higher level of protection of personal data, but it produced significant administrative and financial burdens.<ref>Recital 89 GDPR.</ref> For these reasons, Article 36 restricts the notification obligation only to those processing operations which, following the impact assessment referred to in Article 35, continue to present high risks for the data subject, even after risk mitigation measures are applied. Article 36 GDPR must therefore be read as one step of a larger framework of obligations in line with the accountability principle, and especially closely connected to [[Article 35 GDPR|Article 35 GDPR.]]<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 682 (Oxford University Press 2020) and ''Jandt'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020).</ref> | ||
=== Conditions Triggering the Prior Consultation === | === (1) Conditions Triggering the Prior Consultation === | ||
Article 36(1) provides for an obligation for the controller<ref>The obligation of prior consultation applies only to the controller or joint controllers according to the allocation of competences made in the joint controllership agreement referred to in Article 26 GDPR.</ref> to consult the DPA if the risks identified in the DPIA (Article 35 GDPR) cannot be mitigated through appropriate containment measures.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 683 (Oxford University Press 2020)</ref> There are essentially two conditions for the application of the rules. | |||
First, the processing must present a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject as defined in Article 35(1), (3) and (4) GDPR. Second, after a DPIA has been carried out, no mitigating measures are applied to bring the risk to an acceptable level.<ref>In any case, there must be ''no unacceptably high residual risks''. As examples of such high residual risks, some authors cite "''a situation in which the persons concerned are exposed to significant or even irreversible and unmanageable consequences (e.B. unlawful access to data that threatens the lives of the persons concerned or poses a threat to their job or financial situation) and/or in which the occurrence of a risk seems inevitable (e.B., because there is no way to reduce the number of people accessing the data due to the mode of sharing, use or distribution, or because a known vulnerability is not resolved)".'' See, ''Reibach'', in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin numbers 8 (Beck 2019, 4th ed.) (accessed 28 February 2022).</ref> The provision mentions a high risk "''in the absence of measure taken by the controller"''. This means that the event (high risk) can have various causes. It may of course be the case that, from a technical point of view, no containment measures exist.<ref>Some commentators give the example of blockchain technology, and propose that a consultation in this case would have the role of assessing the processing operation in line with the principle of proportionality. The DPA would then assess whether the operation is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society (suitable to achieving a legitimate aim, the least intrusive yet equally effective mean, as well as properly balancing the risks to individuals against the interest of the controller and society). See, ''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 684 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> However, it may also happen that some measures exist but the controller decides not to adopt them because, say, they are too expensive.<ref>Some commentators emphasise that controllers would then risk that the DPA arrives at a different result after weighing the risks of the processing operation against the economic interests of the controllers in choosing not to take the appropriate mitigating measures. See, ''Jandt'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020).</ref> In both cases the prior consultation procedure is triggered and the DPA could prohibit the controller from moving forward with the processing operation, ''de facto'' making the prior consultation procedure work as an authorisation.<ref>''Jandt'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020).</ref> | |||
Under Article 36(1), the controller needs to consult the DPA after having conducted a DPIA but prior to processing. However, there can be exceptional cases when a controller needs to consult the DPA after the start of the processing operation. Such a situation could occur when technical or organizational changes alter the risk assessment and lead to residual risks which cannot be mitigated by the controller.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 684 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> | |||
=== | === (2) Procedural Aspects === | ||
According to Article 36(2) GDPR, where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing referred to in paragraph 1 would infringe the Regulation, in particular where the controller has insufficiently identified or mitigated the risk, the DPA has to provide written advice to the controller within eight weeks, which can be extended by another six weeks if the processing operation is especially complex<ref>The supervisory authority shall inform the controller and, where applicable, the processor, of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request for consultation together with the reasons for the delay.</ref> | |||
During the consultation process, the DPA would first need to assess whether the controller has correctly identified the risks as well as the appropriate mitigating measures. In this context, the DPA must look at both legal aspects and the latest available technologies that would help mitigate the risks.<ref>''Jandt'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 ff. (C.H. Beck 2020).]; see also Recitals 84 and 94 GDPR.</ref> In addition, the DPA would need to look at the broader societal context of the processing operation and decide whether the potentially high risks it entails are proportionate even in absence of appropriate mitigation measures.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 685 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> | |||
A contested point about the nature of the consultation procedure is whether the advice of the DPA is indeed merely an advice, or whether it can be seen as an approval on moving forward with the processing operation.<ref>In this context, questions would also relate to whether the result of the consultation procedure can be seen as legally binding decision and therefore subject covered by Article 78 GDPR. See, ''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 686 (Oxford University Press 2020); ''Jandt'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020).</ref> The use of the term "advice", however, leaves little doubt in this respect. The controller is free to ignore such advice, but assumes all responsibility if the authority subsequently decides to sanction it for the same violation. This interpretation, moreover, is consistent with the reference that Article 36(2) itself makes to Article 58 GDPR. In the event that the breach is obvious, in fact, the authority may always issue a corrective measure.<ref>''Reibach'', in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin numbers 12 (Beck 2019, 4th ed.) (accessed 28 February 2022).</ref> | |||
Finally, in the absence of a response within the fixed deadline, it can be implicitly assumed that the authority has no further recommendations. | |||
=== (3) Information to be provided to the DPA === | |||
Article 36(3) GDPR lays down which documents need to be provided by the controller. Furthermore, the DPO will need to act as contact point throughout the consultation process.<ref>[[Article 39 GDPR|Article 39(1)(e) GDPR]].</ref> | |||
=== (4) Member State's Prior Consultation Obligation === | |||
With regards to consultations in the context of legislative initiatives based on Article 36(4), it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of [[Article 58 GDPR|Article 58(3)(a) GDPR]] or [[Article 58 GDPR|Article 58(3)(b) GDPR]].<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 686 (Oxford University Press 2020); ''Jandt'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020).</ref> | |||
=== (5) Member State Law May Provide for Stricter Requirements === | |||
==Decisions== | ==Decisions== | ||
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 36 GDPR]] | → You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 36 GDPR]] |
Revision as of 18:10, 28 February 2022
Legal Text
1. The controller shall consult the supervisory authority prior to processing where a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 indicates that the processing would result in a high risk in the absence of measures taken by the controller to mitigate the risk.
2. Where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing referred to in paragraph 1 would infringe this Regulation, in particular where the controller has insufficiently identified or mitigated the risk, the supervisory authority shall, within period of up to eight weeks of receipt of the request for consultation, provide written advice to the controller and, where applicable to the processor, and may use any of its powers referred to in Article 58. That period may be extended by six weeks, taking into account the complexity of the intended processing. The supervisory authority shall inform the controller and, where applicable, the processor, of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request for consultation together with the reasons for the delay. Those periods may be suspended until the supervisory authority has obtained information it has requested for the purposes of the consultation.
3. When consulting the supervisory authority pursuant to paragraph 1, the controller shall provide the supervisory authority with:
- (a) where applicable, the respective responsibilities of the controller, joint controllers and processors involved in the processing, in particular for processing within a group of undertakings;
- (b) the purposes and means of the intended processing;
- (c) the measures and safeguards provided to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects pursuant to this Regulation;
- (d) where applicable, the contact details of the data protection officer;
- (e) the data protection impact assessment provided for in Article 35; and
- (f) any other information requested by the supervisory authority.
4. Member States shall consult the supervisory authority during the preparation of a proposal for a legislative measure to be adopted by a national parliament, or of a regulatory measure based on such a legislative measure, which relates to processing.
5. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member State law may require controllers to consult with, and obtain prior authorisation from, the supervisory authority in relation to processing by a controller for the performance of a task carried out by the controller in the public interest, including processing in relation to social protection and public health.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
Directive 95/46/EC (the DPD) imposed a general obligation to notify the DPA of an operation which processed personal data. The rationale behind the provision was that the DPAs would conduct an assessment prior to the start of the processing operation and thereby manage the potentially high risks of certain operations. However, this general notification obligation did not always lead to a higher level of protection of personal data, but it produced significant administrative and financial burdens.[1] For these reasons, Article 36 restricts the notification obligation only to those processing operations which, following the impact assessment referred to in Article 35, continue to present high risks for the data subject, even after risk mitigation measures are applied. Article 36 GDPR must therefore be read as one step of a larger framework of obligations in line with the accountability principle, and especially closely connected to Article 35 GDPR.[2]
(1) Conditions Triggering the Prior Consultation
Article 36(1) provides for an obligation for the controller[3] to consult the DPA if the risks identified in the DPIA (Article 35 GDPR) cannot be mitigated through appropriate containment measures.[4] There are essentially two conditions for the application of the rules.
First, the processing must present a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject as defined in Article 35(1), (3) and (4) GDPR. Second, after a DPIA has been carried out, no mitigating measures are applied to bring the risk to an acceptable level.[5] The provision mentions a high risk "in the absence of measure taken by the controller". This means that the event (high risk) can have various causes. It may of course be the case that, from a technical point of view, no containment measures exist.[6] However, it may also happen that some measures exist but the controller decides not to adopt them because, say, they are too expensive.[7] In both cases the prior consultation procedure is triggered and the DPA could prohibit the controller from moving forward with the processing operation, de facto making the prior consultation procedure work as an authorisation.[8]
Under Article 36(1), the controller needs to consult the DPA after having conducted a DPIA but prior to processing. However, there can be exceptional cases when a controller needs to consult the DPA after the start of the processing operation. Such a situation could occur when technical or organizational changes alter the risk assessment and lead to residual risks which cannot be mitigated by the controller.[9]
(2) Procedural Aspects
According to Article 36(2) GDPR, where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing referred to in paragraph 1 would infringe the Regulation, in particular where the controller has insufficiently identified or mitigated the risk, the DPA has to provide written advice to the controller within eight weeks, which can be extended by another six weeks if the processing operation is especially complex[10]
During the consultation process, the DPA would first need to assess whether the controller has correctly identified the risks as well as the appropriate mitigating measures. In this context, the DPA must look at both legal aspects and the latest available technologies that would help mitigate the risks.[11] In addition, the DPA would need to look at the broader societal context of the processing operation and decide whether the potentially high risks it entails are proportionate even in absence of appropriate mitigation measures.[12]
A contested point about the nature of the consultation procedure is whether the advice of the DPA is indeed merely an advice, or whether it can be seen as an approval on moving forward with the processing operation.[13] The use of the term "advice", however, leaves little doubt in this respect. The controller is free to ignore such advice, but assumes all responsibility if the authority subsequently decides to sanction it for the same violation. This interpretation, moreover, is consistent with the reference that Article 36(2) itself makes to Article 58 GDPR. In the event that the breach is obvious, in fact, the authority may always issue a corrective measure.[14]
Finally, in the absence of a response within the fixed deadline, it can be implicitly assumed that the authority has no further recommendations.
(3) Information to be provided to the DPA
Article 36(3) GDPR lays down which documents need to be provided by the controller. Furthermore, the DPO will need to act as contact point throughout the consultation process.[15]
(4) Member State's Prior Consultation Obligation
With regards to consultations in the context of legislative initiatives based on Article 36(4), it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b) GDPR.[16]
(5) Member State Law May Provide for Stricter Requirements
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 36 GDPR
References
- ↑ Recital 89 GDPR.
- ↑ Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 682 (Oxford University Press 2020) and Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020).
- ↑ The obligation of prior consultation applies only to the controller or joint controllers according to the allocation of competences made in the joint controllership agreement referred to in Article 26 GDPR.
- ↑ Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 683 (Oxford University Press 2020)
- ↑ In any case, there must be no unacceptably high residual risks. As examples of such high residual risks, some authors cite "a situation in which the persons concerned are exposed to significant or even irreversible and unmanageable consequences (e.B. unlawful access to data that threatens the lives of the persons concerned or poses a threat to their job or financial situation) and/or in which the occurrence of a risk seems inevitable (e.B., because there is no way to reduce the number of people accessing the data due to the mode of sharing, use or distribution, or because a known vulnerability is not resolved)". See, Reibach, in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin numbers 8 (Beck 2019, 4th ed.) (accessed 28 February 2022).
- ↑ Some commentators give the example of blockchain technology, and propose that a consultation in this case would have the role of assessing the processing operation in line with the principle of proportionality. The DPA would then assess whether the operation is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society (suitable to achieving a legitimate aim, the least intrusive yet equally effective mean, as well as properly balancing the risks to individuals against the interest of the controller and society). See, Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 684 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Some commentators emphasise that controllers would then risk that the DPA arrives at a different result after weighing the risks of the processing operation against the economic interests of the controllers in choosing not to take the appropriate mitigating measures. See, Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020).
- ↑ Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020).
- ↑ Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 684 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ The supervisory authority shall inform the controller and, where applicable, the processor, of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request for consultation together with the reasons for the delay.
- ↑ Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 ff. (C.H. Beck 2020).]; see also Recitals 84 and 94 GDPR.
- ↑ Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 685 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ In this context, questions would also relate to whether the result of the consultation procedure can be seen as legally binding decision and therefore subject covered by Article 78 GDPR. See, Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 686 (Oxford University Press 2020); Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020).
- ↑ Reibach, in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin numbers 12 (Beck 2019, 4th ed.) (accessed 28 February 2022).
- ↑ Article 39(1)(e) GDPR.
- ↑ Alvarez Rigaudias, Spina, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 36 GDPR, p. 686 (Oxford University Press 2020); Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020).