Article 24 GDPR: Difference between revisions
(addition to "demonstrate gdpr compliance") |
|||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
===== Risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons ===== | ===== Risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons ===== | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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>Knyrim Art 24 Rn 20</ref> <blockquote><u>Example</u>: 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>Knyrim Art 24 Rn 21.</ref> [Knyrim Art 24 Rn 21] 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 course of a privacy 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 measures to ensure GDPR compliance ==== | ==== Shall implement appropriate measures to ensure GDPR compliance ==== |
Revision as of 15:17, 17 April 2024
Legal Text
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
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(2) GDPR, Article 25 GDPR or Article 32 GDPR.[1] This provision assigns a proactive role to the controller who has to ensure compliance with the GDPR at all stages of processing.[2] To archive 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 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.
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(4)(a) or Article 83(5) GDPR.[4]
EDPB Guidelines: For this Article there are the Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR
(1) 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.
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.
The controller
This provision addresses the controller (see commentary on 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]
Taking into account...
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.[6]
Nature, scope, context and purposes
The controller must consider the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing.[7]
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).[8]
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.[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.[8]
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.
Risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons
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.
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 %.[9]
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.[10] [Knyrim Art 24 Rn 21] 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 course of a privacy 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 measures to ensure GDPR 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,[11] 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).[12] 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.[13]
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.[14]
The ability to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR must be ensured by 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.[15] 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 adds EDPB guidelines and indications provided by the data protection officer.
Certain provisions of the GDPR provide for specific obligations 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).[16]
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.[17]
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.[18]
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 organizational measures, are still appropriate and effective to ensure the compliance with the GDPR and to be able 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.[19]
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.[20] 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: 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 necessary.[21]
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. , 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.[22]
Example: A credit information agency adheres to approved codes of conduct when implementing deletion periods for certain data categories, and still violates Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR because the duration of those deletion periods are unjustified.[23]
However, 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
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
- ↑ Docksey, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 557 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 9 (C.H. Beck 2019).
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ The attribution of the various conditions to these criteria is not practised consistently.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 add citations (Knyrim)
- ↑ Knyrim Art 24 Rn 20
- ↑ Knyrim Art 24 Rn 21.
- ↑ Lang, in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 24, margin numbers 23-24 (C.H. Beck 2022, 4th Edition).
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin numbers 21-22 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition) with further references.
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 25a (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition) with further references.
- ↑ instead of many: Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4th Edition).
- ↑ Dumortier, Gryffroy, in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 38 (C.H.Beck 2023).
- ↑ Dumortier, Gryffroy, in Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Papakonstantinou, Hornung, De Hert, General Data Protection Regulation, Article 24 marginal number 43 (C.H.Beck 2023)
- ↑ Knyrim Art 24 marginal number 31.
- ↑ Jos Dumortier, Pieter Gryffroy , Art 24 marginal number 24.
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 23, margin number 23 (C.H. Beck 2024, 4rd Edition).
- ↑ CJEU, Joined Cases C‑26/22 and C‑64/22, SCHUFA Holding AG, 07 December 2023, margin number 109 (available here)