Article 24 GDPR: Difference between revisions
(style consistency) |
|||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
{{Recital/74 GDPR}}{{Recital/75 GDPR}}{{Recital/76 GDPR}}{{Recital/77 GDPR}}{{Recital/78 GDPR}} | {{Recital/74 GDPR}}{{Recital/75 GDPR}}{{Recital/76 GDPR}}{{Recital/77 GDPR}}{{Recital/78 GDPR}} | ||
==Commentary | ==Commentary== | ||
This provision opens | This provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “''General obligations''” of the controller and processor. It provides an overview of the controller’s responsibilities as the first addressee for compliance with the provisions of the GDPR. The actual obligations that follow from this position are described more specifically in other provisions, 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 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref> However, according to ''Plath'', this does not mean that the provision is merely declaratory: it also establishes directly applicable obligations.<ref>''Plath,'' in Plath DSGVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 2 (Ottoschmidt 2018, 3rd Edition).</ref> Nevertheless, Article 24 GDPR is the only provision in this section which precludes the imposition of fines under [[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(4)(a)]] or [[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(5) GDPR]]. As ''Hartung'' notes, this supports the view that it is intended as a general provision that provides an overview of the controller’s responsibilities.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 24 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref> Although the provision refers to “''responsibility''”, it builds on Article 5(2) GDPR by imposing accountability on the controller. According to ''Docksey'', this shift from ‘passive’ responsibility to a concept of ‘proactive’ and demonstrable compliance is one of the GDPR’s most innovative aspects.<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> Hence, the controller’s processing operations must be known (“''taking into account''”), controlled (through “''appropriate technical and organisational measures''”) and regularly reviewed (“''updated where necessary''”), so that the controller can “''ensure''” compliance with the Regulation. | ||
Although the provision | |||
===(1) Appropriate Technical and Organisational Measures=== | ===(1) Appropriate Technical and Organisational Measures=== | ||
The controller must implement effective technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance with the entire GDPR, including | The controller must implement effective technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance with the entire GDPR, including data protection principles ([[Article 5 GDPR]]), data subject rights (amongst others, [[Article 12 GDPR|Articles 12]] to [[Article 22 GDPR|22 GDPR]]) and controllers’ obligations. | ||
==== | ==== 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. 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> | |||
==== Risk-based Approach ==== | |||
To decide which measures to implement, the controller must perform a risk assessment and select the most appropriate ones. The provision lists several elements that the controller must take into account when assessing the risk. First, it must consider the ''nature'' of the processing (manual or automated), the ''scope'' of the processing (amount of data subjects affected, amount of data collected, bulk or individual processing, sensitivity of the data), the ''context'' of the processing (how many parties are involved, which systems are used, etc.), and the ''purposes'' of the processing.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</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. This obligation to consider the likelihood of the materialisation expands on Article 17 of the Data Protection Directive (DPD), which merely mentioned the consideration of risks.<ref>''Docksey'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 564 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> | |||
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, it 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.<span lang="EN-GB">This | |||
provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “''General | |||
obligations''” of the controller and processor. It provides an overview of | |||
the controller’s responsibilities as the first addressee for compliance with | |||
the provisions of the GDPR.</span><ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 24 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref> Lastly, 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 au''<span lang="EN-GB">This | |||
provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “''General | |||
obligations''” of the controller and processor. It provides an overview of | |||
the controller’s responsibilities as the first addressee for compliance with | |||
the provisions of the GDPR.</span>''thority 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 stipulates 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.<ref>''Martini'', in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 36-36b (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).</ref> 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).<ref>''Lang'', in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 62 (C.H. Beck 2022, 4th Edition).</ref> | |||
==== Demonstrating Compliance and Updating Data Processing Measures ==== | |||
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> The controller must continuously be able to demonstrate compliance, where necessary 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 still 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 === | === (2) Data Protection Policies === | ||
Although ''Hartung'' claims that this paragraph is | 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. By singling these out, ''Martini'' contends that they constitute specific measures within the "''general''" organisational measures, and that paragraph 2 simply refers to procedural measures. These policies are thus not merely legal requirements, but concrete procedural instructions to follow to avoid any violation of the GDPR. The instructions that should follow from such policies 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. Again, the principle of proportionality plays a big role. 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> | ||
=== (3) Self-Regulation Measures as Evidence of Compliance === | === (3) Self-Regulation Measures as Evidence of Compliance === | ||
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> | |||
==Decisions== | ==Decisions== | ||
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 24 GDPR]] | → You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 24 GDPR]] |
Revision as of 15:46, 25 April 2022
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 provides an overview of the controller’s responsibilities as the first addressee for compliance with the provisions of the GDPR. The actual obligations that follow from this position are described more specifically in other provisions, such as Article 25 GDPR or Article 32 GDPR.[1] However, according to Plath, this does not mean that the provision is merely declaratory: it also establishes directly applicable obligations.[2] Nevertheless, Article 24 GDPR is the only provision in this section which precludes the imposition of fines under Article 83(4)(a) or Article 83(5) GDPR. As Hartung notes, this supports the view that it is intended as a general provision that provides an overview of the controller’s responsibilities.[3] Although the provision refers to “responsibility”, it builds on Article 5(2) GDPR by imposing accountability on the controller. According to Docksey, this shift from ‘passive’ responsibility to a concept of ‘proactive’ and demonstrable compliance is one of the GDPR’s most innovative aspects.[4] Hence, the controller’s processing operations must be known (“taking into account”), controlled (through “appropriate technical and organisational measures”) and regularly reviewed (“updated where necessary”), so that the controller can “ensure” compliance with the Regulation.
(1) Appropriate Technical and Organisational Measures
The controller must implement effective technical and organisational measures to ensure compliance with the entire GDPR, including data protection principles (Article 5 GDPR), data subject rights (amongst others, Articles 12 to 22 GDPR) and controllers’ obligations.
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. However, the GDPR does not define what is a technical measure, it merely gives examples,[5] 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).[6] 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.[7]
Risk-based Approach
To decide which measures to implement, the controller must perform a risk assessment and select the most appropriate ones. The provision lists several elements that the controller must take into account when assessing the risk. First, it must consider the nature of the processing (manual or automated), the scope of the processing (amount of data subjects affected, amount of data collected, bulk or individual processing, sensitivity of the data), the context of the processing (how many parties are involved, which systems are used, etc.), and the purposes of the processing.[8] 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. This obligation to consider the likelihood of the materialisation expands on Article 17 of the Data Protection Directive (DPD), which merely mentioned the consideration of risks.[9] 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, it 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.This provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “General obligations” of the controller and processor. It provides an overview of the controller’s responsibilities as the first addressee for compliance with the provisions of the GDPR.[10] Lastly, 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 auThis provision opens Section 1 of Chapter IV, which is dedicated to the “General obligations” of the controller and processor. It provides an overview of the controller’s responsibilities as the first addressee for compliance with the provisions of the GDPR.thority 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 stipulates 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.[11] 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).[12]
Demonstrating Compliance and Updating Data Processing Measures
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.[13] 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(1) GDPR; documenting personal data breaches under 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,[14] as does the Regional Labor Court of Baden-Württemberg.[15] 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.[16] The controller must continuously be able to demonstrate compliance, where necessary by reviewing existing measures and updating them. This requirement is closely related to the controller's obligations laid down in 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 still compliant.[17]
(2) Data Protection Policies
Although Hartung claims that this paragraph is obscure,[18] 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. By singling these out, Martini contends that they constitute specific measures within the "general" organisational measures, and that paragraph 2 simply refers to procedural measures. These policies are thus not merely legal requirements, but concrete procedural instructions to follow to avoid any violation of the GDPR. The instructions that should follow from such policies are linked to Article 39(1)(b) GDPR, which states that the DPO’s duty to monitor compliance with the data protection policies. Again, the principle of proportionality plays a big role. A large company carrying out many different processing operations should have more comprehensive and specific policies than a small company with few processing operations.[19]
(3) Self-Regulation Measures as Evidence of Compliance
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.[20]
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 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Plath, in Plath DSGVO BDSG, Article 24 GDPR, margin number 2 (Ottoschmidt 2018, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 24 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Docksey, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 557 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ 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, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Docksey, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 24 GDPR, p. 564 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 24 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 36-36b (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Lang, in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 62 (C.H. Beck 2022, 4th Edition).
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin number 25a (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ LAG Baden-Württemberg, 25 February 2021, 17 Sa 37/20, margin number 61 (available here).
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin numbers 37a-38 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 21 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO, Article 24, margin numbers 39-42 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd Edition).
- ↑ Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 24, margin number 23 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).