Article 24 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
(substantial changes to commentary section and TOMs)
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 185: Line 185:


==Legal Text==
==Legal Text==
<br /><center>'''Article 24 - Responsibility of the controller'''</center>
<center>'''Article 24 - Responsibility of the controller'''</center>


<span id="1">1.  Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.</span>
<span id="1">1.  Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.</span>
Line 197: Line 197:


==Commentary==
==Commentary==
This provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “''General obligations''” of the controller and processor. It stipulates the the abstract obligation of the controller to ensure and demonstrate GDPR compliance. This provision is therefore closely connected to the numerous more specific obligations of the controller, such as [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(2) GDPR]], [[Article 25 GDPR]] or [[Article 32 GDPR]].<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref> This provision assigns a proactive role to the controller who has to ensure compliance with the GDPR at all stages of processing.<ref>''Docksey'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 557 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> To archive this goal, the controller uses technical and organisational measures that are appropriate to the risk connected to the processing (''risk based approach'').<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref>   
This provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “''General obligations''” of the controller and processor. Article 24 stipulates the abstract obligation of the controller to ensure and demonstrate GDPR compliance and expands the accountability principle set out in [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(2) GDPR]]. Article 24 is therefore closely connected to the more specific obligations of the controller, such as [[Article 25 GDPR]] or [[Article 32 GDPR]].<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref> This article assigns a ''proactive role'' to the controller, who has to ensure compliance with the GDPR at all stages of processing.<ref>''Docksey'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 557 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> To achieve this goal, the controller uses technical and organisational measures that are ''appropriate to the risk'' connected to the processing (''risk based approach'').<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref>   


The controller is not only responsible for the actual compliance with the GDPR, it must also be able to ''demonstrate'' compliance. The controller can use codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms as an element of such demonstration.  
The controller is not only responsible for actual compliance with the GDPR; it must also be able to ''demonstrate'' compliance. The controller can use codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms as an element of such demonstration.  


Article 24 GDPR is the only provision in the section on the general obligations which cannot be directly penalised with a fine under [[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(4)(a)]] or [[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(5) GDPR]].<ref>However, this does not mean that the provision is merely declaratory: it also establishes directly applicable obligations. ''Plath,'' in Plath DSGVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 2 (Ottoschmidt 2018, 3rd Edition).</ref>  <blockquote><u>EDPB Guidelines:</u> For this Article there are the [https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-072020-concepts-controller-and-processor-gdpr_en Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR] </blockquote>
Article 24 GDPR is the only article in the section on the general obligations which cannot be directly penalised with a fine under [[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(4)(a)]] or [[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(5) GDPR]].<ref>However, this does not mean that the provision is merely declaratory: it also establishes directly applicable obligations. ''Plath,'' in Plath DSGVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 2 (Ottoschmidt 2018, 3rd Edition).</ref>  <blockquote><u>EDPB and WP29 Guidelines:</u> For this Article there are the (i) EDPB, 'Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR', 7 July 2021 (Version 2.1) (available [https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-072020-concepts-controller-and-processor-gdpr_en here]), (ii) WP29, 'Opinion 3/2010 on the principle of accountability', 00062/10/EN WP173, 13 July 2010 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2010/wp173_en.pdf here]), (iii) WP29, 'Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679' 17/EN WP248 rev.01, 4 April 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/611236/en here]).  </blockquote>


===(1) Appropriate technical and organisational measures===
===(1) Obligation to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures===
The controller must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance of its processing activities with the GDPR. But the mere compliance is insufficient – the controller must also be able to ''demonstrate'' that the processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR. <blockquote><u>Example</u>: It is not sufficient that a controller manages to answer to access requests in accordance with [[Article 12 GDPR]] and [[Article 15 GDPR]]. The controller must also be able to demonstrate that it implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures that ensure such compliance with the data subject's right to access.</blockquote>The technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller are subject to change and must be reviewed and updated regularly in order to ensure the appropriateness of those measures.  
This provision obliges the controller to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance of its processing activities with the GDPR. Therefore, this provision addresses the controller ([[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(7) GDPR]]) as the primary addressee for GDPR compliance. Other entities, such as data processors, are not subject of Article 24 and their responsibility is limited to specific aspects regulated separately. However, even a limited responsibility of a processor does not affect the overall accountability and liability of the controller.<ref>''Petri'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 9 (C.H. Beck 2019).</ref> 


==== The controller ====
Article 24(1) goes beyond the mere compliance with the GDPR. The controller must also be able to ''demonstrate'' that the processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR. <blockquote>{{Quote-example|It is not sufficient that a controller manages to answer to access requests in accordance with [[Article 12 GDPR]] and [[Article 15 GDPR]]. The controller must also be able to ''demonstrate'' that it implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures that ensure such compliance with the data subject's right to access.}}</blockquote>The technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller are subject to change and must be reviewed and updated regularly in order to ensure the appropriateness of those measures.  
This provision addresses the controller (see commentary on [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(7) GDPR]]) as the primary addressee for GDPR compliance. Other entities, such as data processors, are not subject of Article 24 and their responsibility is limited to specific aspects regulated separately. However, even a limited responsibility of a processor does not affect the overall accountability and liability of the controller.<ref>''Petri'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 9 (C.H. Beck 2019).</ref>


==== Taking into account... ====
It should be noted that the GDPR imposes the duty to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and to perform a respective risk assessment in a number of its provisions (e.g. in Articles 24, [[Article 25 GDPR|25]], [[Article 32 GDPR|32]] and [[Article 35 GDPR|35]]). A controller usually performs one risk assessment for each processing activity taking into account all the requirements set out in the different provisions of the GDPR and implements then appropriate technical and organisational measures that best comply with all those provision.
To decide which technical and organisational measures to implement, the controller must perform a comprehensive assessment of processing activities, analyse potential consequences and causes of harm, and consider the specific criteria and examples provided in the GDPR to effectively evaluate and mitigate risks associated with data processing. The provision lists several elements that the controller must take into account when assessing the risk.<ref>Although GDPR prescribes that the controller must determine the risk, it does not prescribe procedural steps on how to perform this assessment. Hence, this assessment is left to the controller. In this regard, ''Martini'' points to Article 35(4) GDPR, which states that “''The supervisory authority shall establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations which are subject to the requirement for a data protection impact assessment''”, and notes that such a list can provide guidance to controllers since it shows which processing operations constitute a high risk. However, he also argues that “''informative content is limited to whether there is a high or normal risk and whether a data protection impact assessment is therefore indicated (Art. 35(1)) and the supervisory authority must be consulted (Art. 36(1)) before the controller takes concrete measures''”. Hence, such a list is merely an indication of risk and does not provide the controller with certainty as to which measures are suitable and effective in a specific case. See, ''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 36-36b (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition). Moreover, the EDPB could also provide useful guidance. ''Lang'' notes that the Board ''may'' issue guidelines pursuant to Article 70(1)(e) GDPR, and that this applies in particular to the determination of risk that is related to processing (recital 77 GDPR). ''Lang'', in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 62 (C.H. Beck 2022, 4th Edition).</ref>


===== Nature, scope, context and purposes =====
====Taking into account... ====
To decide which specific technical and organisational measures to implement, the controller must perform a comprehensive assessment of processing activities and analyse potential consequences and causes of harm in order to effectively evaluate and mitigate risks associated with the data processing.
 
=====Nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing=====
The controller must consider the ''nature, scope, context and purposes'' of the processing.<ref>The attribution of the various conditions to these criteria is not practised consistently.  </ref>   
The controller must consider the ''nature, scope, context and purposes'' of the processing.<ref>The attribution of the various conditions to these criteria is not practised consistently.  </ref>   


The ''nature'' of the processing refers in particular to the type or processing (e.g. collection, recording, storing, etc.) as well as to the categories of data processed (e.g. whether special categories of personal data are processed).<ref name=":0">add citations (Knyrim)</ref>  
The ''nature'' of the processing refers in particular to the type or processing (e.g. collection, recording, storing, etc.) as well as to the categories of data processed (e.g. whether special categories of personal data are processed).<ref name=":0">''Pollirer,'' in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 32 GDPR, margin numbers 23 (Manz 2022).</ref>
 
The ''scope'' of the processing refers to the ''quantity'' of the data processing resulting from the amount of affected data subjects, the amount of processed data, the duration and the geographical extend of the data processing.<ref>''Pollirer,'' in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 32 GDPR, margin numbers 23 (Manz 2022).</ref>
 
The ''context'' of the processing refers to the specific circumstances such as the modalities and technical implementation, the type and method of data collection and the legal basis in accordance with Article 6 GDPR.<ref>''Pollirer,'' in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 32 GDPR, margin numbers 23 (Manz 2022).</ref>
 
The controller also has to consider the ''purposes'' of the processing. See the commentary on [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(1)(b) GDPR]] for more details on the purpose of a processing activity.
 
=====Risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons=====
Second, the controller must identify the risks associated with the respective processing activity and assess the severity of those risks for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, as well as the likelihood that these materialise. 
 
The ''likelihood'' is the statistical probability that a certain risk will materialise in the future. It should be noted that some risks are inherent to processing activities – the likelihood is therefore 100 %.<ref>''Hötzendorfer'', ''Kastelitz'', ''Tschohl'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 24 GDPR, margin numbers 20 (Manz 2022).</ref> <blockquote>{{Quote-example|A controller publishes certain personal data. The loss of confidentiality is a risk that certainly materialises in course of the processing activity.}}</blockquote>The ''severity'' of the risk is determined by the ''extent'' a potential damage would have to the rights and freedoms of a natural person as well as the nature of the damage.<ref>''Hötzendorfer'', ''Kastelitz'', ''Tschohl'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 24 GDPR, margin numbers 21 (Manz 2022). </ref> Recital 75 clarifies that the damage can be physical, material, or immaterial and lists a range of examples of damages, such as discrimination, identity theft, fraud and loss of confidentiality or control.
 
According to Recital 76 the likelihood and severity of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject should be determined by reference to the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. It also states that the risk should be evaluated on the basis of an ''objective assessment''.
 
Article 24 does not prescribe procedural steps on how to perform this assessment. Therefore, it is left to the controller to use a suitable method. However, regarding the methodology, reference can be made to the risk assessment in the course of a ''data protection impact assessment'' in accordance with [[Article 35 GDPR]], which a controller has to carry out if a processing activity is likely to result in a high risk for the rights and freedoms of natural persons.
 
====Shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure GDPR compliance====
 
=====Technical and organisational measures=====
The term "''measure''" must be understood broadly since it refers to all actions that are appropriate to make the processing compliant with the GDPR. As the provision explains, this can be done through technical and organisational means.
 
''Technical measures'' have a direct effect on the operation of technical processing, while ''organisational measures'' have an effect on the circumstances of processing.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref>
 
Examples of a technical measure are pseudonymisation of personal data, encryption, access restrictions and password protection. The implementation of data protection policies, a yearly review of the processing activities and training of employees and management would be organisational measures. In practice, the distinction between technical and organisational measures is not always clear as these can overlap. However, this is unproblematic because the GDPR does not differentiate between the two in terms of legal requirements.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref><blockquote>{{Quote-example|A controller wants to enable its employees to work from home. In order to ensure GDPR compliance, he implements a number of technical and organisational measures, like providing a VPN connection to the company network (technical measure) and drafting a “work from home” policy which makes the use of the VPN connection mandatory (organisational measure).  }}</blockquote>
 
=====Appropriate measures to ensure GDPR compliance=====
The controller has to implement technical and organisational measures that are ''appropriate'' for the respective processing activity and ''effective''.<ref>''Dumortier'', ''Gryffroy,'' in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 27 et seq (C.H.Beck 2023).</ref> Therefore, the controller does not have to implement every available technical and organisational measure but has to consider – taking into account the specific processing activity and the underlying risks – which measures are necessary in order to ensure compliance with the GPDR and enable the controller to demonstrate such compliance. This assessment of proportionality follows from Article 52(1) CFR and has to be conducted by the controller itself.


The ''scope'' of the processing refers to the ''quantity'' of the data processing resulting from the amount of affected data subjects the amount of processed data, duration and geographical extend of the data processing.<ref name=":0" />
Certain provisions of the GPDR demand the implementation of more specific technical and organisational measures (e.g. Article 25 (1) and (2), Article 28(1), Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 89(1) GDPR). These measures can also be regarded as measures under Article 24(1) since they serve the compliance with the obligations under the GDPR. However, the controller has to assess in these cases if additional measures are necessary.  


The ''context'' of the processing refers to the specific circumstances such as the modalities and technical implementation, the type and method of data collection and the legal basis in accordance with Article 6 GDPR.<ref name=":0" />  
====And to demonstrate GDPR compliance====
Pursuant to Article 24(1) the controller must be able to demonstrate the compliance with the GDPR. This provision therefore widens the accountability obligation stipulated in [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(2) GDPR]] which obliges the controller to be able to demonstrate compliance with the data protection principles set out in [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(1) GDPR]].<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition) with further references.</ref>  


The controller also has to consider the ''purposes'' of the processing. See the commentary on [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(1)(b) GDPR]] for more details on the purpose.
The ability to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR must be ensured by the implementation of appropriate technical and organisational measures. The comprehensiveness of the necessary evidence must be proportionate to the risk posed by the processing operation. The riskier a processing operation, the more comprehensive the accompanying evidence must be.<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 25a (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref> The controller can use a wide variety of ways in order to demonstrate that it implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures that ensure compliance with the GDPR. In particular, the controller can refer to data protection policies (Article 24(2)) or approved codes of conduct or certification mechanisms (Article 24(3)). Recitals 77 additionally mentions EDPB guidelines and indications provided by the data protection officer.  


===== Risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons =====
Certain provisions of the GDPR provide for specific measures to demonstrate compliance (e.g. maintaining a record of processing activities under [[Article 30 GDPR|Article 30(1)]] GDPR, documenting personal data breaches under [[Article 33 GDPR|Article 33(5) GDPR]] or performing a data protection impact assessment under [[Article 35 GDPR]]).<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition) with further references.</ref>
Second, the controller must assess the severity of the risks for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, as well as the likelihood that these materialise. Recital 75 gives useful guidance to determine what this risk actually entails. Besides clarifying that the damage can be physical, material, or immaterial, it lists a range of examples of damages, such as discrimination, identity theft or fraud.  


However, Recital 75 also mentions "''loss of confidentiality of personal data protected by professional secrecy''". Moreover, it is important to note that, although this is not mentioned in the provision, it follows from Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that the principle of proportionality plays an important role in determining whether a measure is appropriate. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of a measure can play an important part in the assessment. For instance, processing that involves the publication of data can be considered risky. The scale of processing, particularly when it involves large volumes of personal data or profiling, can introduce specific risks if those data are interconnected with other available somewhere else, and even if individual data points seem insignificant. Special circumstances may arise when processing sensitive data, retaining data for extended periods, or transferring data to different contexts. Risky purposes are often associated with social dependency relationships and processing linked to fundamental rights, among other factors.<ref>''Petri'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 12 (C.H. Beck 2019).</ref>  
The duty to demonstrate compliance is not limited to demonstrations to the supervisory authority. The duty, for example, also applies to complaint procedures in accordance with [[Article 77 GDPR]] or civil litigation under [[Article 79 GDPR]]. However, whether the controller’s obligation to demonstrate compliance also implies a reversal of the burden of proof when a data subject seeks compensation for damages pursuant to [[Article 82 GDPR|Article 82]], is disputed.<ref>instead of many: ''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).</ref>


Additionally, there may be causes of further harm resulting from subsequent data processing that extend beyond the infringement of personal rights. These causes can contribute to increased risks, although they may not be specifically defined. Examples include limitations on data subject rights not provided by law, processing of sensitive data as defined in Articles 9 and 10, creation of individual profiles, recording of individuals requiring special protection (e.g., children), or unique processing activities. These factors can be utilized to influence decisions, engage in discriminatory practices, differentiate treatment, or deny access to services. High-risk processing operations are further detailed in Recitals 89 and 91, particularly highlighting the use of new technologies.<ref>''Petri'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 13-14 (C.H. Beck 2019).</ref>
====Measures must be continuously reviewed and updated ====
The controller must continuously ensure and demonstrate compliance with the GDPR by consistently reviewing existing measures and updating them.
Beyond the qualifier "''where necessary''", it is not specified how frequently updates must be carried out. The criterion of necessity does not mean that the controller must only react to concrete changes. Since it is the controller’s responsibility to ensure that their processing operations are compliant at any time, the controller has to review its measures regularly. However, ''significant changes'' in the processing activity or the legal environment will certainly trigger the obligation to review the technical and organisational measures.<ref>''Dumortier'', ''Gryffroy,'' in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 38 (C.H.Beck 2023).</ref> <blockquote>{{Quote-example|A controller running an online-shop receives a complaint from a data subject claiming that one of his online-forms violates the principle of data minimization ([[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(1)(c) GDPR]]). Such a complaint could trigger a review of the processing activity.}}</blockquote>In course of the review the controller must assess if the current technical and organisational measures, are still appropriate and effective to ensure the compliance with the GDPR and to enable the controller to demonstrate the compliance. If not, the controller has to implement additional technical and organizational measures or change the existing ones in order to bring the processing activity in compliance with the GDPR.<ref>''Dumortier'', ''Gryffroy,'' in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 43 (C.H.Beck 2023)</ref>  


==== Shall implement appropriate measures to ensure GDPR compliance ====
Particular attention should be paid to the advice of the data protection officer in accordance with [[Article 39 GDPR|Article 39(1) GDPR]], who is tasked with the monitoring of the controller’s compliance with data protection regulations (without decrementing the controller’s responsibility to ensure compliance).  
The term "''measure''" must be understood broadly since it refers to all actions that are appropriate to make the processing compliant with the GDPR. As the provision explains, this can be done through technical and organisational means. However, the GDPR does not define ''what'' is a technical measure, it merely gives examples,<ref>''Lang'', in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 24, margin numbers 23-24 (C.H. Beck 2022, 4th Edition).</ref> such as securing the access (password protection) or transfer (encryption). Of course, these technical measures would be ineffective if no organisational measures that secure compliance with them are implemented (e.g. data audits, activity logs, internal training of employees by the DPO).<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin numbers 21-22 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref> Other examples of "measures" are given in Recital 78, which lists pseudonymisation, data minimisation, and "''transparency with regard to the functions and processing of personal data''". In practice, the distinction between technical and organisational measures is not always clear as these can overlap. However, as ''Hartung'' observes, this is not really a problem because the GDPR does not differentiate between the two in terms of legal requirements.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref>


==== And to demonstrate GDPR compliance ====
===(2) Data protection policies===
Controllers not only have to ensure compliance, but have to demonstrate it through evidence. The comprehensiveness of this evidence must be proportionate to the risk posed by the processing operation. The more risky a processing operation, the more comprehensive the accompanying evidence must be.<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 25a (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref> Conversely, where the risk is lower a witness statement rather than physical documentation might be sufficient. Like other elements of the provision, this requirement is elaborated on in other GDPR articles (e.g. maintaining a record of processing activities under [[Article 30 GDPR|Article 30(1)]] GDPR; documenting personal data breaches under [[Article 33 GDPR|Article 33(5) GDPR]]). Whether the controller’s obligation to demonstrate compliance, also implies a reversal of the burden of proof when a data subject seeks compensation for damages pursuant to Article 82, is uncertain. Some authors, such as Bergt and Quaas, argue in favour of this point of view,<ref>For example, Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin numbers 46, 48 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition); ''Quaas'', in: Wolff, Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 82 GDPR, margin number 16 (C.H. Beck 2021, 39th Edition).</ref> as does the Regional Labor Court of Baden-Württemberg.<ref>LAG Baden-Württemberg, 25 February 2021, 17 Sa 37/20, margin number 61 (available [http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&nr=34234 here]).</ref> Others, however, disagree with this interpretation. According to ''Martini,'' the controller’s obligation to demonstrate compliance does not necessarily imply that the burden of proof lies with it where a claim is brought under civil law. If a data subject asserts a claim for damages under [[Article 82 GDPR]], it is still up to them to prove the violation of data protection law, damage, and causality.<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 25a (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition). See also ''Moos, Schefzig,'' in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 62 (C.H. Beck 2022, 4th Edition).</ref>  
Article 24(2) mentions a specific organisational measure, namely the implementation of ''data protection policies'' – internal guidelines with binding effect in the controller’s organization. Such policies regularly include concrete procedural instructions and oblige the controller’s employees to act in a specific way to ensure compliance with the GDPR.<ref>''Hötzendorfer'', ''Kastelitz'', ''Tschohl'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 24 GDPR, margin numbers 31 (Manz 2022). </ref> If the controller appointed a data protection officer, this person is also tasked with the ''monitoring'' of the controller’s data protection policies (see [[Article 39 GDPR|Article 39(1)(b) GDPR]]). <blockquote>{{Quote-example|Most controllers have a ''general data protection policy'' covering topics like the destruction of sensitive documents, the usage of IT-infrastructure and deletion periods as well as more specific data protection policies like ''specific internal rules'' regarding the compliance with data protection in the product development process or the handling of access requests in accordance with Article 15 GDPR.}}</blockquote>The implementation of data protection policies is only mandatory, when it is ''proportionate'' to the processing activity. In other words, it is not obligatory to implement a data protection policy for all processing activities. However, for larger organisations or controllers of extensive processing activities the implementation of data protection policies is but necessary.<ref>Jos Dumortier, Pieter Gryffroy , Art 24  marginal number 24.</ref>


==== Measures must be continuously reviewed and updated ====
Regardless of the existence of an obligation, an implementation of data protection policies is an important tool in order to ''demonstrate'' compliance with the GDPR.  
The controller must continuously be able to demonstrate compliance by reviewing existing measures and updating them. This requirement is closely related to the controller's obligations laid down in [[Article 32 GDPR|Article 32(1)(d) GDPR]]. Beyond the qualifier "''where necessary''", it is not specified how frequently updates must be carried out. Again, it is the controller’s responsibility to ensure that their processing operations are currently compliant.<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin numbers 37a-38 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref>
=== (2) Data protection policies ===
Although ''Hartung'' claims that this paragraph is obscure,<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 21 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref> ''Martini'' argues it simply expands on Article 24(1) GDPR by specifying the conditions under which the technical and organisational measures must also include data protection measures. These policies are thus not merely legal requirements, but concrete procedural instructions a controller or its staff should follow to avoid violations of the GDPR. The instructions are linked to [[Article 39 GDPR|Article 39(1)(b) GDPR]], which states that the DPO’s duty to monitor compliance with the data protection policies. The principle of proportionality  ("''Where proportionate"'') plays an important role in this case. A large company carrying out many different processing operations should have more comprehensive and specific policies than a small company with few processing operations.<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin numbers 39-42 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref><blockquote><u>Example</u>: XXX</blockquote>


=== (3) Self-regulation measures as evidence of compliance ===
=== (3) Demonstration through codes of conduct and certifications===
Article 24(3) provides the controller with more certainty regarding the question whether it is sufficiently able to demonstrate compliance with its obligations. The controller can show that it adhered to (i) approved codes of conduct ([[Article 40 GDPR]]), (ii) approved certification mechanisms ([[Article 42 GDPR]]), or (iii) guidelines by the EDPB and advice by the data protection officer (Recital 77 GDPR). Nevertheless, it follows from the word "''element''" that such self-regulation measures only support the assumption that the controller is compliant, but does not prove it.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 23 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref>
Article 24(3) provides for the possibility to refer to the adherence to (i) approved codes of conduct ([[Article 40 GDPR]]), (ii) approved certification mechanisms ([[Article 42 GDPR]]) in order to ''indicate'' compliance with the GDPR. Nevertheless, it follows from the word "''element''" that such self-regulation measures ''support'' the assumption that the controller is compliant, but do not prove it.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 23, margin number 23 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4rd Edition).</ref><blockquote>{{Quote-example|A credit information agency adheres to approved codes of conduct when implementing deletion periods for certain data categories could still violate [[Article 5 GDPR|Article 5(1)(a)]] and [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(1) GDPR]] because the duration of those deletion periods are unjustified.<ref>CJEU, Joined Cases C‑26/22 and C‑64/22, ''SCHUFA'' ''Holding AG'', 07 December 2023, margin number 109 (available [[CJEU - Joined Cases C‑26/22 and C‑64/22 - SCHUFA|here]]) </ref>}}</blockquote>This provision does not limit the possibility to demonstrate compliance via other means (see section on “And to demonstrate GDPR compliance” above). 
==Decisions==
==Decisions==
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 24 GDPR]]
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 24 GDPR]]

Latest revision as of 07:25, 30 October 2024

Article 24 - Responsibility of the controller
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text

Article 24 - Responsibility of the controller

1. Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.

2. Where proportionate in relation to processing activities, the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the implementation of appropriate data protection policies by the controller.

3. Adherence to approved codes of conduct as referred to in Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms as referred to in Article 42 may be used as an element by which to demonstrate compliance with the obligations of the controller.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 74: Controller Responsibility and Liability
The responsibility and liability of the controller for any processing of personal data carried out by the controller or on the controller's behalf should be established. In particular, the controller should be obliged to implement appropriate and effective measures and be able to demonstrate the compliance of processing activities with this Regulation, including the effectiveness of the measures. Those measures should take into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing and the risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

Recital 75: Risks to the Rights and Freedoms of Natural Persons
The risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, of varying likelihood and severity, may result from personal data processing which could lead to physical, material or non-material damage, in particular: where the processing may give rise to discrimination, identity theft or fraud, financial loss, damage to the reputation, loss of confidentiality of personal data protected by professional secrecy, unauthorised reversal of pseudonymisation, or any other significant economic or social disadvantage; where data subjects might be deprived of their rights and freedoms or prevented from exercising control over their personal data; where personal data are processed which reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, data concerning health or data concerning sex life or criminal convictions and offences or related security measures; where personal aspects are evaluated, in particular analysing or predicting aspects concerning performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences or interests, reliability or behaviour, location or movements, in order to create or use personal profiles; where personal data of vulnerable natural persons, in particular of children, are processed; or where processing involves a large amount of personal data and affects a large number of data subjects.

Recital 76: Evaluating the Risks to Natural Persons
The likelihood and severity of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject should be determined by reference to the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. Risk should be evaluated on the basis of an objective assessment, by which it is established whether data processing operations involve a risk or a high risk.

Recital 77: Guidance on Evaluating Risks
Guidance on the implementation of appropriate measures and on the demonstration of compliance by the controller or the processor, especially as regards the identification of the risk related to the processing, their assessment in terms of origin, nature, likelihood and severity, and the identification of best practices to mitigate the risk, could be provided in particular by means of approved codes of conduct, approved certifications, guidelines provided by the Board or indications provided by a data protection officer. The Board may also issue guidelines on processing operations that are considered to be unlikely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons and indicate what measures may be sufficient in such cases to address such risk.

Recital 78: Appropriate Technical and Organisational Measures
The protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data require that appropriate technical and organisational measures be taken to ensure that the requirements of this Regulation are met. In order to be able to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation, the controller should adopt internal policies and implement measures which meet in particular the principles of data protection by design and data protection by default. Such measures could consist, inter alia, of minimising the processing of personal data, pseudonymising personal data as soon as possible, transparency with regard to the functions and processing of personal data, enabling the data subject to monitor the data processing, enabling the controller to create and improve security features. When developing, designing, selecting and using applications, services and products that are based on the processing of personal data or process personal data to fulfil their task, producers of the products, services and applications should be encouraged to take into account the right to data protection when developing and designing such products, services and applications and, with due regard to the state of the art, to make sure that controllers and processors are able to fulfil their data protection obligations. The principles of data protection by design and by default should also be taken into consideration in the context of public tenders.

Commentary

This provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “General obligations” of the controller and processor. Article 24 stipulates the abstract obligation of the controller to ensure and demonstrate GDPR compliance and expands the accountability principle set out in Article 5(2) GDPR. Article 24 is therefore closely connected to the more specific obligations of the controller, such as Article 25 GDPR or Article 32 GDPR.[1] This article assigns a proactive role to the controller, who has to ensure compliance with the GDPR at all stages of processing.[2] To achieve this goal, the controller uses technical and organisational measures that are appropriate to the risk connected to the processing (risk based approach).[3]

The controller is not only responsible for actual compliance with the GDPR; it must also be able to demonstrate compliance. The controller can use codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms as an element of such demonstration.

Article 24 GDPR is the only article in the section on the general obligations which cannot be directly penalised with a fine under Article 83(4)(a) or Article 83(5) GDPR.[4]

EDPB and WP29 Guidelines: For this Article there are the (i) EDPB, 'Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR', 7 July 2021 (Version 2.1) (available here), (ii) WP29, 'Opinion 3/2010 on the principle of accountability', 00062/10/EN WP173, 13 July 2010 (available here), (iii) WP29, 'Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679' 17/EN WP248 rev.01, 4 April 2017 (available here).

(1) Obligation to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures

This provision obliges the controller to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance of its processing activities with the GDPR. Therefore, this provision addresses the controller (Article 4(7) GDPR) as the primary addressee for GDPR compliance. Other entities, such as data processors, are not subject of Article 24 and their responsibility is limited to specific aspects regulated separately. However, even a limited responsibility of a processor does not affect the overall accountability and liability of the controller.[5]

Article 24(1) goes beyond the mere compliance with the GDPR. The controller must also be able to demonstrate that the processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR.

Example-icon.png

For example: It is not sufficient that a controller manages to answer to access requests in accordance with Article 12 GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. The controller must also be able to demonstrate that it implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures that ensure such compliance with the data subject's right to access.

The technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller are subject to change and must be reviewed and updated regularly in order to ensure the appropriateness of those measures.

It should be noted that the GDPR imposes the duty to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and to perform a respective risk assessment in a number of its provisions (e.g. in Articles 24, 25, 32 and 35). A controller usually performs one risk assessment for each processing activity taking into account all the requirements set out in the different provisions of the GDPR and implements then appropriate technical and organisational measures that best comply with all those provision.

Taking into account...

To decide which specific technical and organisational measures to implement, the controller must perform a comprehensive assessment of processing activities and analyse potential consequences and causes of harm in order to effectively evaluate and mitigate risks associated with the data processing.

Nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing

The controller must consider the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing.[6]

The nature of the processing refers in particular to the type or processing (e.g. collection, recording, storing, etc.) as well as to the categories of data processed (e.g. whether special categories of personal data are processed).[7]

The scope of the processing refers to the quantity of the data processing resulting from the amount of affected data subjects, the amount of processed data, the duration and the geographical extend of the data processing.[8]

The context of the processing refers to the specific circumstances such as the modalities and technical implementation, the type and method of data collection and the legal basis in accordance with Article 6 GDPR.[9]

The controller also has to consider the purposes of the processing. See the commentary on Article 5(1)(b) GDPR for more details on the purpose of a processing activity.

Risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons

Second, the controller must identify the risks associated with the respective processing activity and assess the severity of those risks for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, as well as the likelihood that these materialise.

The likelihood is the statistical probability that a certain risk will materialise in the future. It should be noted that some risks are inherent to processing activities – the likelihood is therefore 100 %.[10]

Example-icon.png

For example: A controller publishes certain personal data. The loss of confidentiality is a risk that certainly materialises in course of the processing activity.

The severity of the risk is determined by the extent a potential damage would have to the rights and freedoms of a natural person as well as the nature of the damage.[11] Recital 75 clarifies that the damage can be physical, material, or immaterial and lists a range of examples of damages, such as discrimination, identity theft, fraud and loss of confidentiality or control.

According to Recital 76 the likelihood and severity of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject should be determined by reference to the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. It also states that the risk should be evaluated on the basis of an objective assessment.

Article 24 does not prescribe procedural steps on how to perform this assessment. Therefore, it is left to the controller to use a suitable method. However, regarding the methodology, reference can be made to the risk assessment in the course of a data protection impact assessment in accordance with Article 35 GDPR, which a controller has to carry out if a processing activity is likely to result in a high risk for the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

Shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure GDPR compliance

Technical and organisational measures

The term "measure" must be understood broadly since it refers to all actions that are appropriate to make the processing compliant with the GDPR. As the provision explains, this can be done through technical and organisational means.

Technical measures have a direct effect on the operation of technical processing, while organisational measures have an effect on the circumstances of processing.[12]

Examples of a technical measure are pseudonymisation of personal data, encryption, access restrictions and password protection. The implementation of data protection policies, a yearly review of the processing activities and training of employees and management would be organisational measures. In practice, the distinction between technical and organisational measures is not always clear as these can overlap. However, this is unproblematic because the GDPR does not differentiate between the two in terms of legal requirements.[13]

Example-icon.png

For example: A controller wants to enable its employees to work from home. In order to ensure GDPR compliance, he implements a number of technical and organisational measures, like providing a VPN connection to the company network (technical measure) and drafting a “work from home” policy which makes the use of the VPN connection mandatory (organisational measure).  

Appropriate measures to ensure GDPR compliance

The controller has to implement technical and organisational measures that are appropriate for the respective processing activity and effective.[14] Therefore, the controller does not have to implement every available technical and organisational measure but has to consider – taking into account the specific processing activity and the underlying risks – which measures are necessary in order to ensure compliance with the GPDR and enable the controller to demonstrate such compliance. This assessment of proportionality follows from Article 52(1) CFR and has to be conducted by the controller itself.

Certain provisions of the GPDR demand the implementation of more specific technical and organisational measures (e.g. Article 25 (1) and (2), Article 28(1), Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 89(1) GDPR). These measures can also be regarded as measures under Article 24(1) since they serve the compliance with the obligations under the GDPR. However, the controller has to assess in these cases if additional measures are necessary.

And to demonstrate GDPR compliance

Pursuant to Article 24(1) the controller must be able to demonstrate the compliance with the GDPR. This provision therefore widens the accountability obligation stipulated in Article 5(2) GDPR which obliges the controller to be able to demonstrate compliance with the data protection principles set out in Article 5(1) GDPR.[15]

The ability to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR must be ensured by the implementation of appropriate technical and organisational measures. The comprehensiveness of the necessary evidence must be proportionate to the risk posed by the processing operation. The riskier a processing operation, the more comprehensive the accompanying evidence must be.[16] The controller can use a wide variety of ways in order to demonstrate that it implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures that ensure compliance with the GDPR. In particular, the controller can refer to data protection policies (Article 24(2)) or approved codes of conduct or certification mechanisms (Article 24(3)). Recitals 77 additionally mentions EDPB guidelines and indications provided by the data protection officer.

Certain provisions of the GDPR provide for specific measures to demonstrate compliance (e.g. maintaining a record of processing activities under Article 30(1) GDPR, documenting personal data breaches under Article 33(5) GDPR or performing a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 GDPR).[17]

The duty to demonstrate compliance is not limited to demonstrations to the supervisory authority. The duty, for example, also applies to complaint procedures in accordance with Article 77 GDPR or civil litigation under Article 79 GDPR. However, whether the controller’s obligation to demonstrate compliance also implies a reversal of the burden of proof when a data subject seeks compensation for damages pursuant to Article 82, is disputed.[18]

Measures must be continuously reviewed and updated

The controller must continuously ensure and demonstrate compliance with the GDPR by consistently reviewing existing measures and updating them.

Beyond the qualifier "where necessary", it is not specified how frequently updates must be carried out. The criterion of necessity does not mean that the controller must only react to concrete changes. Since it is the controller’s responsibility to ensure that their processing operations are compliant at any time, the controller has to review its measures regularly. However, significant changes in the processing activity or the legal environment will certainly trigger the obligation to review the technical and organisational measures.[19]

Example-icon.png

For example: A controller running an online-shop receives a complaint from a data subject claiming that one of his online-forms violates the principle of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). Such a complaint could trigger a review of the processing activity.

In course of the review the controller must assess if the current technical and organisational measures, are still appropriate and effective to ensure the compliance with the GDPR and to enable the controller to demonstrate the compliance. If not, the controller has to implement additional technical and organizational measures or change the existing ones in order to bring the processing activity in compliance with the GDPR.[20]

Particular attention should be paid to the advice of the data protection officer in accordance with Article 39(1) GDPR, who is tasked with the monitoring of the controller’s compliance with data protection regulations (without decrementing the controller’s responsibility to ensure compliance).  

(2) Data protection policies

Article 24(2) mentions a specific organisational measure, namely the implementation of data protection policies – internal guidelines with binding effect in the controller’s organization. Such policies regularly include concrete procedural instructions and oblige the controller’s employees to act in a specific way to ensure compliance with the GDPR.[21] If the controller appointed a data protection officer, this person is also tasked with the monitoring of the controller’s data protection policies (see Article 39(1)(b) GDPR).

Example-icon.png

For example: Most controllers have a general data protection policy covering topics like the destruction of sensitive documents, the usage of IT-infrastructure and deletion periods as well as more specific data protection policies like specific internal rules regarding the compliance with data protection in the product development process or the handling of access requests in accordance with Article 15 GDPR.

The implementation of data protection policies is only mandatory, when it is proportionate to the processing activity. In other words, it is not obligatory to implement a data protection policy for all processing activities. However, for larger organisations or controllers of extensive processing activities the implementation of data protection policies is but necessary.[22]

Regardless of the existence of an obligation, an implementation of data protection policies is an important tool in order to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR.

(3) Demonstration through codes of conduct and certifications

Article 24(3) provides for the possibility to refer to the adherence to (i) approved codes of conduct (Article 40 GDPR), (ii) approved certification mechanisms (Article 42 GDPR) in order to indicate compliance with the GDPR. Nevertheless, it follows from the word "element" that such self-regulation measures support the assumption that the controller is compliant, but do not prove it.[23]

Example-icon.png

For example: A credit information agency adheres to approved codes of conduct when implementing deletion periods for certain data categories could still violate Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR because the duration of those deletion periods are unjustified.[24]

This provision does not limit the possibility to demonstrate compliance via other means (see section on “And to demonstrate GDPR compliance” above).

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 24 GDPR

References

  1. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
  2. Docksey, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 557 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  3. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
  4. However, this does not mean that the provision is merely declaratory: it also establishes directly applicable obligations. Plath, in Plath DSGVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 2 (Ottoschmidt 2018, 3rd Edition).
  5. Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 9 (C.H. Beck 2019).
  6. The attribution of the various conditions to these criteria is not practised consistently. 
  7. Pollirer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 32 GDPR, margin numbers 23 (Manz 2022).
  8. Pollirer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 32 GDPR, margin numbers 23 (Manz 2022).
  9. Pollirer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 32 GDPR, margin numbers 23 (Manz 2022).
  10. Hötzendorfer, Kastelitz, Tschohl, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 24 GDPR, margin numbers 20 (Manz 2022).
  11. Hötzendorfer, Kastelitz, Tschohl, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 24 GDPR, margin numbers 21 (Manz 2022).
  12. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
  13. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
  14. Dumortier, Gryffroy, in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 27 et seq (C.H.Beck 2023).
  15. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition) with further references.
  16. Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 25a (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
  17. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition) with further references.
  18. instead of many: Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
  19. Dumortier, Gryffroy, in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 38 (C.H.Beck 2023).
  20. Dumortier, Gryffroy, in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 43 (C.H.Beck 2023)
  21. Hötzendorfer, Kastelitz, Tschohl, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 24 GDPR, margin numbers 31 (Manz 2022).
  22. Jos Dumortier, Pieter Gryffroy , Art 24  marginal number 24.
  23. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 23, margin number 23 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4rd Edition).
  24. CJEU, Joined Cases C‑26/22 and C‑64/22, SCHUFA Holding AG, 07 December 2023, margin number 109 (available here)