Article 26 GDPR
Legal Text
1. Where two or more controllers jointly determine the purposes and means of processing, they shall be joint controllers. They shall in a transparent manner determine their respective responsibilities for compliance with the obligations under this Regulation, in particular as regards the exercising of the rights of the data subject and their respective duties to provide the information referred to in Articles 13 and 14, by means of an arrangement between them unless, and in so far as, the respective responsibilities of the controllers are determined by Union or Member State law to which the controllers are subject. The arrangement may designate a contact point for data subjects.
2. The arrangement referred to in paragraph 1 shall duly reflect the respective roles and relationships of the joint controllers vis-à-vis the data subjects. The essence of the arrangement shall be made available to the data subject.
3. Irrespective of the terms of the arrangement referred to in paragraph 1, the data subject may exercise his or her rights under this Regulation in respect of and against each of the controllers.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary on Article 26
Article 26 GDPR goes a substantial way towards empowering the data subject by requiring transparency and accountability where multiple controllers jointly engage in processing operations. In particular, Article 26 GDPR requires joint-controllers to determine and allocate their respective data processing and GDPR responsibilities by means of an arrangement. The essence of the arrangement shall be made available to the data subjects. This should make it easier for them to gain awareness about the processing and exercise their rights against each controller.
(1) Joint Controllerhip
Under Article 26(1) GDPR, joint controllership takes place when two or more controllers "jointly determine the purposes and means of processing".
The term “jointly” must be interpreted as meaning “together with” or “not alone”. In other words, when determining the existence of joint controllership, attention must be paid to whether or not multiple entities act in a joint manner. This assessment of joint participation should be carried on a factual, rather than formal basis.[1]
In particular, when assessing whether there is joint participation by two or more controllers, it is necessary to look at whether there is decisive influence by the controllers over when and how processing takes place. Typically, two controllers will be held to be “jointly” controlling in instances where they together determine the purposes and means of processing.[2] The EDPB has highlighted that an important criterion for joint controllership is the notion of an inextricable linkage between the processing activities of two parties.[3] This can take place through acts such as taking a common decision together, or taking decisions separately that complement one another. This may also happen in instances where there is a mutual benefit that arises from the same processing operation, like an economic benefit, which was the case in the Fashion ID decision.[4]
Jointly determining the purposes and means of processing does not necessarily mean that two controllers must have the same purpose for the processing. Joint controllers are also not required to exert influence over the purposes and means of processing at the same point in time.[5] Different controllers may be involved at different times and stages of processing,[6] and to different degrees. The use of joint infrastructure or a common data processing system will not automatically result in joint controllership, especially in instances where the processing is carried out separately and the operations of the parties do not necessarily overlap.[7]
One consequence of this approach is that liability of a controller will be restricted to the processing of the personal data for which it “actually determines the purposes and means of processing”. This implies, prima facie, that a data subject cannot hold a controller to account for data processing beyond that which the controller is involved with. This means that the responsibility of each controller is limited to the set of operations it decides upon.
This does not mean, however, that collaboration between two controllers will always result in joint controllership. In instances where controllers process data independently of each other and for their own purposes, they will not be held to be joint controllers.[8] merely a mutual benefit to processing in itself is insufficient to establish joint controllership. If an entity processes data but does not pursue its own purposes in relation to the processing activity, it will merely be a processor, rather than a joint controller.
(2) Content of the Joint Controllership Arrangement
Article 26 GDPR imposes on the joint controllers an obligation to have an arrangement that clearly allocates the roles of each controller.
This arrangement should reflect the responsibilities of each controller, and in particular, their responsibilities with regards to the rights of data subjects under Articles 13 and 14 GDPR. The "essence" of this arrangement should be made available to the data subject, in order to provide transparency on processing operations. In particular, the data subject should be able to understand which data controller serves as a point of contact for the exercise of their data subject rights. However, if the joint controllership arrangement presented to the data subject is flawed or does not represent reality, the factual circumstances will prevail.[9] This may happen, for instance, in situations where the processor goes beyond their contractual obligations to process data on behalf of a controller, and proceeds to determine the means and purposes of processing themselves. In such a situation, even though the arrangement may label the processor as only processing data, the factual circumstances are such that the processor is indeed acting as a controller, and therefore may be liable as a joint controller.
However, there is an exception to the requirement to have a joint controllership arrangement: in instances where the responsibilities of the controller are determined by Union or Member State law, an arrangement between the controllers is not necessary.[10]
With regards to the content of the joint controllership arrangement, joint controllers may wish to specify their respective responsibilities towards implementing general data protection principles (Article 5 GDPR), security measures (Article 32 GDPR), and transfers of data to third countries (Chapter V of the GDPR). Other topics that could also be included, depending on what is at stake with the processing, and what the intention of the parties is with regards to the processed data. However, both controllers always have a duty to ensure that they both have a legal basis for processing.[11] Furthermore, each controller must also ensure respect for the Purpose Limitation principle (Article 5(1)(b) GDPR) and guarantee that data is not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with the purposes for which it was originally collected.[12]
(3) Effects on the Rights of Data Subjects
It should be noted, that under Article 26(3) GDPR, a data subject is not bound by the terms of the joint controller arrangement, and may actually exercise their rights against each of the joint data controllers. This allows for further empowerment of the data subject.
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 26 GDPR
References
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 21 July 2021, p. 19.
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 21 July 2021, p. 19.
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 21 July 2021, p. 19.
- ↑ In this case, the CJEU found that an operator of a social network and an administrator of a fan page hosted on that network were both jointly responsible for the processing of the personal data of visitors who came to that page, even if the administrator of the fan page did not have access to the personal data in question. Instead, the "contribution" of the administrator came from the act of defining the parameters of the fan-page. See, CJEU, 29 July 2019, Fashion ID, C‑40/17, margin number 85 (available here).
- ↑ The CJEU clarified in its Fashion ID decision that an entity will be considered as a joint controller only with respect to the operations for which it determines, together with others, the purposes and means of processing. See, CJEU, 29 July 2019, Fashion ID, C‑40/17 (available here).
- ↑ CJEU, 5 June 2018, Wirtschaftsakademie, C‑210/16, margin numbers 38, 43 (available here).
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 21 July 2021, p. 19 p. 20.
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 21 July 2021, p. 24.
- ↑ Millard, Kamarinou, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 26 GDPR, p. 587 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Millard, Kamarinou, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 26 GDPR, p. 587 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 2 September 2020, p. 42.
- ↑ EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, 2 September 2020, p. 42.