Article 31 GDPR: Difference between revisions
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
Article 31 GDPR establishes a legal obligation for controllers and processors, including their representatives, to cooperate with DPAs “''in the exercise of'' [their] ''tasks''”. | Article 31 GDPR establishes a legal obligation for controllers and processors, including their representatives, to cooperate with DPAs “''in the exercise of'' [their] ''tasks''”. | ||
In general terms, the content of the obligation to cooperate is therefore initially based on the - very wide - tasks and powers of the supervisory authority. For instance, under [[Article 57 GDPR|Article 57(1) GDPR]], each supervisory authority shall, among the others, “''monitor and enforce the application of this Regulation''” as well as “''conduct investigations on the application of this Regulation''”. Article 58(1) GDPR requires the controller and the processor “''to provide any information it requires for the performance of its tasks''”. | |||
In addition to these general clauses, the GDPR includes specific cases of cooperation with the supervisory authority. For instance, further cooperation obligations arise from Article 30(4), which requires the provision of records of processing activities upon request, and Article 33(1) and (2), which mandate the obligation to report a data breach. | |||
The tasks and powers outlined in Articles 57 and 58 as well as in other specific provisions of the GDPR (see above) always involve a certain degree of cooperation. On the controller's side, this encompasses both obligations to actively collaborate with the authority or passively tolerate a certain action, depending on the specific task or power being carrying out. For instance, Article 58(1)(a) regarding the provision of information implies a duty to actively cooperate, while Article 58(1)(e) regarding access to personal data establishes an obligation to simply tolerate the presence of the authority's staff.<ref>''Bogendorfer'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 4 (Manz 2022).</ref> | |||
Providing information can conflict with the right against self-incrimination. | Providing information can conflict with the right against self-incrimination. |
Revision as of 10:14, 6 June 2023
Legal Text
The controller and the processor and, where applicable, their representatives, shall cooperate, on request, with the supervisory authority in the performance of its tasks.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
Article 31 stipulates a legal obligation for controllers and processors to cooperate with the supervisory authority.
Cooperation
Article 31 GDPR establishes a legal obligation for controllers and processors, including their representatives, to cooperate with DPAs “in the exercise of [their] tasks”.
In general terms, the content of the obligation to cooperate is therefore initially based on the - very wide - tasks and powers of the supervisory authority. For instance, under Article 57(1) GDPR, each supervisory authority shall, among the others, “monitor and enforce the application of this Regulation” as well as “conduct investigations on the application of this Regulation”. Article 58(1) GDPR requires the controller and the processor “to provide any information it requires for the performance of its tasks”.
In addition to these general clauses, the GDPR includes specific cases of cooperation with the supervisory authority. For instance, further cooperation obligations arise from Article 30(4), which requires the provision of records of processing activities upon request, and Article 33(1) and (2), which mandate the obligation to report a data breach.
The tasks and powers outlined in Articles 57 and 58 as well as in other specific provisions of the GDPR (see above) always involve a certain degree of cooperation. On the controller's side, this encompasses both obligations to actively collaborate with the authority or passively tolerate a certain action, depending on the specific task or power being carrying out. For instance, Article 58(1)(a) regarding the provision of information implies a duty to actively cooperate, while Article 58(1)(e) regarding access to personal data establishes an obligation to simply tolerate the presence of the authority's staff.[1]
Providing information can conflict with the right against self-incrimination.
In Orkem, the CJEU clarifies[2] that “documents, even with incriminating content, must be delivered”.[3]
Violations of this obligation are punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR, but proactive and good-faith behaviours can be taken into consideration by the DPA while deciding the amount of the administrative fine (Article 83(2)(f) GDPR).
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 31 GDPR
References
- ↑ Bogendorfer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 4 (Manz 2022).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-374/87, Orkem, 18 October 1989 (available here).
- ↑ Kotschy, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 31 GDPR, p. 628 (Oxford University Press 2020).