Article 30 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 185: Line 185:


==Legal Text==
==Legal Text==
<br /><center>'''Article 30 - Records of processing activities'''</center><br />
<br /><center>'''Article 30 - Records of processing activities'''</center>


<span id="1">1.  Each controller and, where applicable, the controller's representative, shall maintain a record of processing activities under its responsibility. That record shall contain all of the following information:</span>
<span id="1">1.  Each controller and, where applicable, the controller's representative, shall maintain a record of processing activities under its responsibility. That record shall contain all of the following information:</span>
Line 220: Line 220:


==Relevant Recitals==
==Relevant Recitals==
''You can help us fill this section!''
{{Recital/13 GDPR}}{{Recital/82 GDPR}}{{Recital/89 GDPR}}


==Commentary==
==Commentary==
Article 30 GDPR requires controllers and processors to maintain a "''record of processing activities''" (Article 4(2) GDPR).<ref>This obligation, which replaces the old notification obligation where data processing activities had to be notified to DPAs (Articles 18-19 Directive 95/46/EC), represents the expression of several data processing principles. On the one hand, it promotes accountability by allowing the controller to keep track of its processing and amend it where necessary. On the other hand, it increases the overall transparency of the processing and makes it easier for data subjects to exercise their rights. In practice, the record of processing activities is an updated written account of the main elements of the processing.</ref> Paragraph 1 specifies the information that the controller must include in the record. Paragraph 2 serves the same purpose, but it is addressed to the processor. Paragraph 3 clarifies that the record must be in written form, possibly also in electronic form. The following paragraph, paragraph 4, states that the record must be provided to supervisory authorities when they request it. Finally, the last paragraph establishes exceptions to the obligation to keep the record for controllers and processors with fewer than 250 employees, unless additional conditions are met.


=== Overview ===
=== (1) Record of processing activities by the controller ===
Article 30 GDPR describes the obligation to maintain a record of processing activities. This means that each controller and processor has to establish a record and include each processing activity that concerns personal data. The definition of processing activities corresponds with the one of processing in Article 4 (no. 2) GDPR. Systematically the stipulation goes hand in hand with the principles and obligations stated in Article 5, 6, 12. GDPR.[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn1|[1]]] Only when a record of processing activities exists, principles such as transparency, purpose, data minimization, accuracy, storage limitation and accountability etc., can be realized. It serves as self-control mechanism to assess what kind of processing activities are at stake.[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn2|[2]]] Moreover, Data Protection Impact Assessments (“DPIA”) are included in these records to legitimize the respective processing activity, in particular if there is a high risk for personal data. Therefore, also technical and organizational measures have to be mentioned.
Article 30(1) GDPR provides a list of the elements that must be contained in the record of processing activities carried out by the controller. If the controller is located outside the EU, then its representative in the EU under Article 27 GDPR is subject to this obligation.  


Above that, when either a data subjects enforces its rights (Article 12 GDPR) or when a data protection authority requests it (Article 24 (1) GDPR), all activities can easily be explained. In particular, a record of data processing activities is useful and eases the process of giving a data subject the information that have been asked for. The record can also help in drafting and keeping the privacy policy up to date.
==== (a) Names and contact details ====
Article 30(1)(a) states it should contain the name and contact details of the controller and, where applicable, the joint controller(s),<ref>In case of joint controllership, it is necessary to list the names and contact details of all joint controllers (Article 26(1) GDPR). ''Petri'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2019).</ref> the controller's representative and the data protection officer. This information is intended to enable an unambiguous identification of the controller(s) and whoever else is responsible under the GDPR. The notion of 'contact details' is not limited to a simple email address. It must contain all the elements (physical address, telephone number, contact person) that make it possible to contact a particular person or, where appropriate, reach them for an inspection.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 30, margin number 17 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref>


The record of processing activities serves as an accountability instrument for the data protection authority to assess compliance. However, it also supports the controller in assessing its own processing as well as the one carried out by possible external processors.
==== (b) Purposes of the processing ====
Article 30(1)(b) requires the controller to provide a description of the purposes of the processing. In accordance with Article 5(2)(b), purposes must be determined prior to the data collection and, in principle, subsequent processing is only allowed for such pre-specified purposes, which must be clear and transparent to enable the supervisory authority to assess the adequacy of safeguards implemented and the lawfulness of the processing during potential audits.<ref>''Bertermann'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 10 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).</ref>


=== Article 30 (1) GDPR ===
Speaking of lawfulness, the provision does not require to mention the legal basis upon which a certain purpose relies. This gap should be filled by interpreting the text in line with the principle of accountability. If a controller must demonstrate compliance with the GDPR, then it must have a "''firm and reasoned notion about the legal basis of processing before it starts any operation, and this notion should be verifiable by means of its records. Thus, in order for the keeping of records to be meaningful, it will be necessary for the controller to be able to demonstrate on which legal basis it relies in its processing''".<ref>''Kotschy'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 620 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>
The obligation to record processing activities lays with the controller and not with the data protection officer.  


Activities which have to be included in the non-exhaustive list are the following: (1) The name and contact details of the controller and related parties; (2) The purposes of the processing; (3) A description of the categories of data subjects and of the categories of personal data; (4) The categories of recipients; (5) Transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation and, in the case of the applicability of Article 49(1), the documentation of suitable safeguards; (6) A data deletion concept; (7) A general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1).
==== (c) Categories of data subjects and of personal data ====
Article 30(1)(c) GDPR establishes that the record of processing activities shall describe the categories of data subjects and the categories of personal data. Examples of categories of data subjects are "''website visitors''", "''clinic patients''", "''employees''". Categories of personal data may be "''website clicks''", "''diagnosis''", "''holiday leave''", as well as "''union affiliations''". Scholars have highlighted that each category of personal data should be tied to the category of data subject it belongs to. For example, the record of processing activities should clearly show that the two categories "''holiday leave''" and "''union affiliations''" are processed with regard to the "''employees''" category.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 30, margin number 19 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref>


=== Article 30 (2) GDPR ===
==== (d) Categories of recipients ====
The processor has the obligations to record (1) The name and contact details of the controller on behalf of which the processor is acting; (2) The categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller; (3) Transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation and, in the case of the applicability of Article 49(1), the documentation of suitable safeguards; (4) A general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1).
Article 30(1)(d) prescribes that controllers should describe the categories of recipients to whom personal data have been or will be disclosed. The wording of the provision suggests that only the categories of addressees have to be indicated, such as "''suppliers''", "''accountants''", "''marketing consultants''", or "''legal advisors''". However, this ambiguity does not seem advisable, as other provisions of the GDPR require the controller to keep track of individual recipients. For example, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR and Article 19 GDPR require the disclosure of “''recipients or categories of recipients''” and specific recipients “''if the data subject requests it''” respectively. Based on the same logical and legal premises, the European Court of Justice has recently clarified that, if requested by the data subject, the controller is obliged to provide a specific list of recipients.<ref>CJEU, C-154/21, ''RW v Österreichische Post'', 12 January 2023, among the others, margin number 24 (available [[CJEU - C-154/21 - RW v Österreichische Post|here]]).</ref> As such, it would go against its aim of increasing accountability to not specify the recipients in the record of processing activities.<ref>In a broadly similar sense, ''Kotschy'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 620 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>


Regarding the safeguards of Article 49 (1) GDPR, some companies might turn to this article, after the EU-US Privacy Shield has been invalidated by the European Court of Justice in ''Schrems II[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn3|'''[3]''']]''. However, they need to justify their choice of derogation in the records of data processing.
==== (e) International transfers ====
In accordance with Article 30(1)(e), the controller shall provide information regarding the transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation and, in the case of the applicability of [[Article 49 GDPR|Article 49(1) GDPR]], the documentation of suitable safeguards. There is no obligation to name the means by which the controller intends to ensure an adequate level of protection on the part of the foreign recipient of the data. Additional information ''"is needed only if a data transfer shall, exceptionally, be based on Article 49(1), second subparagraph, which pertains to occasional ('non-repetitive') transfers of data about a limited number of data subjects and for compelling legitimate interests''".<ref>''Kotschy'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 622 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>


=== Article 30 (3) GDPR ===
==== (f) Envisaged time limits for erasure ====
The records shall be in writing; this includes as well electronic formats. Chambers of Commerce as well as supervisory authorities in the EU provide for templates in pdf and word formats. In general, these records shall include processing activities, applications, responsible persons (“owners of data”) which is connected with the organizational structure of the respective company/organisation.
Article 30(1)(f) GDPR requires controllers to clarify the envisaged time limits for erasure of different categories of data. If the controller knows when certain data will be deleted, it is necessary to indicate this period. However, it may not be feasible to specify an exact deletion period for every processing, especially if the permissible storage duration is contingent upon the indefinite duration of a contract. In such cases, it is advisable to provide a general deadline for deletion. Specifying the deletion period also helps the supervisory authority ensure compliance with the requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR).<ref>''Bertermann'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).</ref>


The obligation to keep the record up to date is not expressly regulated in the GDPR. However, if the record is not kept up to date, it is not possible to comply with the principles of transparency etc. and to provide the data protection authority with such records when requested.[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn4|[4]]] Moreover, the accountability to keep it up to date does not lay with the data protection officer, but with the representative of the respective enterprise or organization.[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn5|[5]]]
==== (g) Description of security measures ====
Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller provides a "''general description''" of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in [[Article 32 GDPR|Article 32(1) GDPR]]. In most cases, it is rare to encounter situations where a general description is impossible. Controller will likely use categories of measures such as "use of anti-virus programs," "restriction of external access", "security guards at the facility" or similar. However, if the controller engages in numerous processing activities, it can result in a significant documentation effort.<ref>''Petri'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 33 (C.H. Beck 2019).</ref>


In addition, this leads to the question, whether the record needs to be electronically or has at least to provide for a timestamp, which is easier to trace in an electronic format. This means changes that have been made to the record need to be available to show ongoing compliance. Due to the principle of accountability (Article 5 (2) GDPR), changes have to be transparent and traceable, e.g. who has been the controller/processor or data protection officer etc. at a certain point in time.[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn6|[6]]] This kind of documentation of changes should be kept for a certain amount of time.[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftn7|[7]]]
=== (2) Record of processing activities by the processor ===
Article 30(2) GDPR regulates the minimum requirements of the processor's records of processing activities (or, where available, its representative's under Article 27 GDPR). These rules, which partly overlap with those established by Article 30(1) GDPR, notably provide for an obligation on the processor to record the following elements.


=== Article 30 (4) GDPR ===
==== (a) Names and contact details ====
The supervisory authorities can assess companies and organisations as general control measure, but also in case of data breaches and complaints of data subjects. This is why a records of processing activities needs to be available at any time to provide the supervisory authority with it upon request.
Under Article 30(2)(a) GDPR, the processor must provide information in two separate directions. In their Record of Processing Activities (ROPA), on one hand, they should indicate the name as well as the contact details of all the controllers (or their representatives) on whose behalf they operate.<ref>Scholars note that the requirement to specify the responsible person presents significant challenges, particularly for processors engaged in large-scale businesses such as cloud service providers, hosting providers, or software-as-a-service platforms, as they frequently work with thousands or even hundreds of thousands of controllers. In most cases, the disclosure of these extensive lists of controllers holds little relevance for the supervisory authority. Therefore, a safeguard clause such as "if possible" would have been welcomed in this case. See, ''Bertermann'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).</ref> On the other hand, they should mention all the processors or their representatives the processor has, in turn, engaged.<ref>"''Which kind of processors should be included is not explained: they could be involved either by having delegated processing tasks to the documenting processor or by being sub-processors of the documenting processor. In both cases there would have to exist a contract between the documenting processor and the orher processor or processors, in which case their identity must be known and recorded anyway by the documenting processor, which is also the case with regard to the names of the representative (Article 27) and data protection officer (Article 37) both of which are also required under Article 30(2)(a).''" See ''Kotschy'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 623 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> If available, data protection officers should also be mentioned.


=== Article 30 (5) GDPR - Exceptions ===
==== (b) Categories of processing carried out on behalf of the controller ====
An enterprise or an organisation employing less than 250 persons is not obliged to implement the record of processing. However, the obligation becomes applicable if such an organization carries out processing that is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes special categories of data (Article 9(1) GDPR) or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10.
Article 30(2)(b) GDPR requires the processor to list the categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller. The processor is only required to document the categories of processing activities. The notion of categories implies that individual processing steps are not described in detail. It is likely sufficient for the processor to provide a general description of their service in the documentation (such as cloud computing or software-as-a-service).<ref>''Bogendorfer'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 42 (Manz 2021).</ref>
----[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref1|[1]]] ''Hartung'' in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO, BDSG, Kommentar, 2nd edition, 2018, Art. 30 para 11.


[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref2|[2]]] ''Hartung'' in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO, BDSG, Kommentar, 2nd edition, 2018, Art. 30 para 12.
==== (c) International transfers ====
Where applicable, information on the transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation and, in the case of the applicability of [[Article 49 GDPR|Article 49(1) GDPR]], the documentation of suitable safeguards (Article 30(2)(c) GDPR). See commentary under Article 30(1)(e) GDPR.


[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref3|[3]]] ''ECJ'', case C-311/18, 16 July 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:559.
==== (d) Description of security measures ====
The processor's ROPA must contain a general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in [[Article 32 GDPR|Article 32(1) GDPR]]. See commentary under Article 30(1)(g) GDPR.


[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref4|[4]]]  ''Hartung'' in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO, BDSG, Kommentar, 2nd edition, 2018, Art. 30 para 31.
=== (3) Written form ===
The records of processing activities shall be in writing, including in electronic form.<ref>An example of a ROPA is provided by the French data protection authority in electronic format. The document, in the form of an Excel file, includes all the fields required by Article 30 GDPR for both the controller and the processor. It also offers numerous examples to aid in understanding the meaning of the various elements mentioned in the provision (accessed on 5.6.2023, available [https://www.cnil.fr/en/record-processing-activities here]).</ref> This enables controllers to provide DPAs with the records when requested under Article 30(4) GDPR and to comply with, ''inter alia'', the principles of accountability and transparency.<ref>''Hartung'', in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 30, margin number 31 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).</ref> Any changes to the processing operation have to be transparent and traceable (e.g. who has been the controller, processor or data protection officer – and when). The ROPA must be kept up to date, “''in order to be able to track changes to the entries in the directory (e.g. who was responsible when, data protection officer, etc.), the changes should be documented with a storage period of one year.''”<ref>DSK, Datenschutzkonferenz, ‘Hinweise zum Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten’, Art. 30 DS-GVO, February 2018, p. 3 (available [https://www.ldi.nrw.de/mainmenu_Datenschutz/submenu_Datenschutzbeauftragte/Inhalt/Behoerdliche_Datenschutzbeauftragte/Inhalt/Das-Verarbeitungsverzeichnis-nach-Artikel-30-DS-GVO/Hinweise-zum-Verzeichnis-von-Verarbeitungstaetigkeiten.pdf here]).</ref>


[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref5|[5]]]  ''Hartung'' in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO, BDSG, Kommentar, 2nd edition, 2018, Art. 30 para 31.
=== (4) Provision of the ROPA to supervisory authority ===
Under Article 30(4) GDPR, the controller or the processor and, where applicable, the controller's or the processor's representative, shall make the record available to the supervisory authority on request. Supervisory authorities can investigate controllers and processor as general control measure, but also where data breaches have occurred and data subjects have filed complaints. Records of processing activities therefore have to be available at any time to be provided to DPAs upon request.  


[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref6|[6]]] DSK, Datenchutzkonferenz, Hinweise zum Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten, Art. 30 DS-GVO, p. 3, <nowiki>https://www.ldi.nrw.de/mainmenu_Datenschutz/submenu_Datenschutzbeauftragte/Inhalt/Behoerdliche_Datenschutzbeauftragte/Inhalt/Das-Verarbeitungsverzeichnis-nach-Artikel-30-DS-GVO/Hinweise-zum-Verzeichnis-von-Verarbeitungstaetigkeiten.pdf</nowiki> accessed on 01.10.2020, 15:23.
Although not explicitly stated in Article 30(4), the Record of Processing Activities (ROPA) should be made available to the Data Protection Officer (DPO). Conversely, the DPO may not have the necessary resources to carry out their duties, as provided for in Article 38(2) of the GDPR.  


[[Article 30 GDPR#%20ftnref7|[7]]] DSK, Datenchutzkonferenz, Hinweise zum Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten, Art. 30 DS-GVO, p. 3, <nowiki>https://www.ldi.nrw.de/mainmenu_Datenschutz/submenu_Datenschutzbeauftragte/Inhalt/Behoerdliche_Datenschutzbeauftragte/Inhalt/Das-Verarbeitungsverzeichnis-nach-Artikel-30-DS-GVO/Hinweise-zum-Verzeichnis-von-Verarbeitungstaetigkeiten.pdf</nowiki> accessed on 01.10.2020, 15:23.
There is no obligation to provide the ROPA directly to third parties, including data subjects.<ref>The record of processing activities may contain additional information or be voluntarily documented in greater detail (particularly if it serves as a compliance tool), and it might also include trade secrets (such as technical and organizational measures implemented). ''Bogendorfer'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 50 (Manz 2021).</ref> However, a significant portion of the information contained in the ROPA is already available in privacy policies (Articles 13 and 14) or in response to access requests (Article 15).


=== (5) Exceptions ===
An enterprise or an organisation employing less than 250 persons is not obliged to maintain records of processing. However, this exception does not apply if an organisation carries out processing that is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes special categories of data ([[Article 9 GDPR|Article 9(1) GDPR]]) or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in [[Article 10 GDPR]].<ref>The WP29 underlines that the wording of Article 30(5) is clear in providing that the three types of processing to which the derogation does not apply are alternative (“or”) and the occurrence of any one of them alone triggers the obligation to maintain the record of processing activities. <u>See,</u> WP29, Position Paper on the derogations from the obligation to maintain records of processing activities pursuant to Article 30(5) GDPR, p. 2 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/624045 here]).</ref>
==Decisions==
==Decisions==
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 30 GDPR]]
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 30 GDPR]]

Latest revision as of 15:31, 5 June 2023

Article 30 - Records of processing activities
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 30 - Records of processing activities

1. Each controller and, where applicable, the controller's representative, shall maintain a record of processing activities under its responsibility. That record shall contain all of the following information:

(a) the name and contact details of the controller and, where applicable, the joint controller, the controller's representative and the data protection officer;
(b) the purposes of the processing;
(c) a description of the categories of data subjects and of the categories of personal data;
(d) the categories of recipients to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed including recipients in third countries or international organisations;
(e) where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation, including the identification of that third country or international organisation and, in the case of transfers referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), the documentation of suitable safeguards;
(f) where possible, the envisaged time limits for erasure of the different categories of data;
(g) where possible, a general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1).

2. Each processor and, where applicable, the processor's representative shall maintain a record of all categories of processing activities carried out on behalf of a controller, containing:

(a) the name and contact details of the processor or processors and of each controller on behalf of which the processor is acting, and, where applicable, of the controller's or the processor's representative, and the data protection officer;
(b) the categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller;
(c) where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation, including the identification of that third country or international organisation and, in the case of transfers referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), the documentation of suitable safeguards;
(d) where possible, a general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1).

3. The records referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be in writing, including in electronic form.

4. The controller or the processor and, where applicable, the controller's or the processor's representative, shall make the record available to the supervisory authority on request.

5. The obligations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to an enterprise or an organisation employing fewer than 250 persons unless the processing it carries out is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes special categories of data as referred to in Article 9(1) or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 13: Harmonisation of Protection and Advantages for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
In order to ensure a consistent level of protection for natural persons throughout the Union and to prevent divergences hampering the free movement of personal data within the internal market, a Regulation is necessary to provide legal certainty and transparency for economic operators, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and to provide natural persons in all Member States with the same level of legally enforceable rights and obligations and responsibilities for controllers and processors, to ensure consistent monitoring of the processing of personal data, and equivalent sanctions in all Member States as well as effective cooperation between the supervisory authorities of different Member States. The proper functioning of the internal market requires that the free movement of personal data within the Union is not restricted or prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. To take account of the specific situation of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, this Regulation includes a derogation for organisations with fewer than 250 employees with regard to record-keeping. In addition, the Union institutions and bodies, and Member States and their supervisory authorities, are encouraged to take account of the specific needs of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in the application of this Regulation. The notion of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises should draw from Article 2 of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

Recital 82: Maintenance and Availability of Records
In order to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation, the controller or processor should maintain records of processing activities under its responsibility. Each controller and processor should be obliged to cooperate with the supervisory authority and make those records, on request, available to it, so that it might serve for monitoring those processing operations.

Recital 89: Abolishment of Indiscriminate General Notification
Directive 95/46/EC provided for a general obligation to notify the processing of personal data to the supervisory authorities. While that obligation produces administrative and financial burdens, it did not in all cases contribute to improving the protection of personal data. Such indiscriminate general notification obligations should therefore be abolished, and replaced by effective procedures and mechanisms which focus instead on those types of processing operations which are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons by virtue of their nature, scope, context and purposes. Such types of processing operations may be those which in, particular, involve using new technologies, or are of a new kind and where no data protection impact assessment has been carried out before by the controller, or where they become necessary in the light of the time that has elapsed since the initial processing.

Commentary

Article 30 GDPR requires controllers and processors to maintain a "record of processing activities" (Article 4(2) GDPR).[1] Paragraph 1 specifies the information that the controller must include in the record. Paragraph 2 serves the same purpose, but it is addressed to the processor. Paragraph 3 clarifies that the record must be in written form, possibly also in electronic form. The following paragraph, paragraph 4, states that the record must be provided to supervisory authorities when they request it. Finally, the last paragraph establishes exceptions to the obligation to keep the record for controllers and processors with fewer than 250 employees, unless additional conditions are met.

(1) Record of processing activities by the controller

Article 30(1) GDPR provides a list of the elements that must be contained in the record of processing activities carried out by the controller. If the controller is located outside the EU, then its representative in the EU under Article 27 GDPR is subject to this obligation.

(a) Names and contact details

Article 30(1)(a) states it should contain the name and contact details of the controller and, where applicable, the joint controller(s),[2] the controller's representative and the data protection officer. This information is intended to enable an unambiguous identification of the controller(s) and whoever else is responsible under the GDPR. The notion of 'contact details' is not limited to a simple email address. It must contain all the elements (physical address, telephone number, contact person) that make it possible to contact a particular person or, where appropriate, reach them for an inspection.[3]

(b) Purposes of the processing

Article 30(1)(b) requires the controller to provide a description of the purposes of the processing. In accordance with Article 5(2)(b), purposes must be determined prior to the data collection and, in principle, subsequent processing is only allowed for such pre-specified purposes, which must be clear and transparent to enable the supervisory authority to assess the adequacy of safeguards implemented and the lawfulness of the processing during potential audits.[4]

Speaking of lawfulness, the provision does not require to mention the legal basis upon which a certain purpose relies. This gap should be filled by interpreting the text in line with the principle of accountability. If a controller must demonstrate compliance with the GDPR, then it must have a "firm and reasoned notion about the legal basis of processing before it starts any operation, and this notion should be verifiable by means of its records. Thus, in order for the keeping of records to be meaningful, it will be necessary for the controller to be able to demonstrate on which legal basis it relies in its processing".[5]

(c) Categories of data subjects and of personal data

Article 30(1)(c) GDPR establishes that the record of processing activities shall describe the categories of data subjects and the categories of personal data. Examples of categories of data subjects are "website visitors", "clinic patients", "employees". Categories of personal data may be "website clicks", "diagnosis", "holiday leave", as well as "union affiliations". Scholars have highlighted that each category of personal data should be tied to the category of data subject it belongs to. For example, the record of processing activities should clearly show that the two categories "holiday leave" and "union affiliations" are processed with regard to the "employees" category.[6]

(d) Categories of recipients

Article 30(1)(d) prescribes that controllers should describe the categories of recipients to whom personal data have been or will be disclosed. The wording of the provision suggests that only the categories of addressees have to be indicated, such as "suppliers", "accountants", "marketing consultants", or "legal advisors". However, this ambiguity does not seem advisable, as other provisions of the GDPR require the controller to keep track of individual recipients. For example, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR and Article 19 GDPR require the disclosure of “recipients or categories of recipients” and specific recipients “if the data subject requests it” respectively. Based on the same logical and legal premises, the European Court of Justice has recently clarified that, if requested by the data subject, the controller is obliged to provide a specific list of recipients.[7] As such, it would go against its aim of increasing accountability to not specify the recipients in the record of processing activities.[8]

(e) International transfers

In accordance with Article 30(1)(e), the controller shall provide information regarding the transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation and, in the case of the applicability of Article 49(1) GDPR, the documentation of suitable safeguards. There is no obligation to name the means by which the controller intends to ensure an adequate level of protection on the part of the foreign recipient of the data. Additional information "is needed only if a data transfer shall, exceptionally, be based on Article 49(1), second subparagraph, which pertains to occasional ('non-repetitive') transfers of data about a limited number of data subjects and for compelling legitimate interests".[9]

(f) Envisaged time limits for erasure

Article 30(1)(f) GDPR requires controllers to clarify the envisaged time limits for erasure of different categories of data. If the controller knows when certain data will be deleted, it is necessary to indicate this period. However, it may not be feasible to specify an exact deletion period for every processing, especially if the permissible storage duration is contingent upon the indefinite duration of a contract. In such cases, it is advisable to provide a general deadline for deletion. Specifying the deletion period also helps the supervisory authority ensure compliance with the requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR).[10]

(g) Description of security measures

Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller provides a "general description" of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1) GDPR. In most cases, it is rare to encounter situations where a general description is impossible. Controller will likely use categories of measures such as "use of anti-virus programs," "restriction of external access", "security guards at the facility" or similar. However, if the controller engages in numerous processing activities, it can result in a significant documentation effort.[11]

(2) Record of processing activities by the processor

Article 30(2) GDPR regulates the minimum requirements of the processor's records of processing activities (or, where available, its representative's under Article 27 GDPR). These rules, which partly overlap with those established by Article 30(1) GDPR, notably provide for an obligation on the processor to record the following elements.

(a) Names and contact details

Under Article 30(2)(a) GDPR, the processor must provide information in two separate directions. In their Record of Processing Activities (ROPA), on one hand, they should indicate the name as well as the contact details of all the controllers (or their representatives) on whose behalf they operate.[12] On the other hand, they should mention all the processors or their representatives the processor has, in turn, engaged.[13] If available, data protection officers should also be mentioned.

(b) Categories of processing carried out on behalf of the controller

Article 30(2)(b) GDPR requires the processor to list the categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller. The processor is only required to document the categories of processing activities. The notion of categories implies that individual processing steps are not described in detail. It is likely sufficient for the processor to provide a general description of their service in the documentation (such as cloud computing or software-as-a-service).[14]

(c) International transfers

Where applicable, information on the transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation and, in the case of the applicability of Article 49(1) GDPR, the documentation of suitable safeguards (Article 30(2)(c) GDPR). See commentary under Article 30(1)(e) GDPR.

(d) Description of security measures

The processor's ROPA must contain a general description of the technical and organisational security measures referred to in Article 32(1) GDPR. See commentary under Article 30(1)(g) GDPR.

(3) Written form

The records of processing activities shall be in writing, including in electronic form.[15] This enables controllers to provide DPAs with the records when requested under Article 30(4) GDPR and to comply with, inter alia, the principles of accountability and transparency.[16] Any changes to the processing operation have to be transparent and traceable (e.g. who has been the controller, processor or data protection officer – and when). The ROPA must be kept up to date, “in order to be able to track changes to the entries in the directory (e.g. who was responsible when, data protection officer, etc.), the changes should be documented with a storage period of one year.[17]

(4) Provision of the ROPA to supervisory authority

Under Article 30(4) GDPR, the controller or the processor and, where applicable, the controller's or the processor's representative, shall make the record available to the supervisory authority on request. Supervisory authorities can investigate controllers and processor as general control measure, but also where data breaches have occurred and data subjects have filed complaints. Records of processing activities therefore have to be available at any time to be provided to DPAs upon request.

Although not explicitly stated in Article 30(4), the Record of Processing Activities (ROPA) should be made available to the Data Protection Officer (DPO). Conversely, the DPO may not have the necessary resources to carry out their duties, as provided for in Article 38(2) of the GDPR.

There is no obligation to provide the ROPA directly to third parties, including data subjects.[18] However, a significant portion of the information contained in the ROPA is already available in privacy policies (Articles 13 and 14) or in response to access requests (Article 15).

(5) Exceptions

An enterprise or an organisation employing less than 250 persons is not obliged to maintain records of processing. However, this exception does not apply if an organisation carries out processing that is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes special categories of data (Article 9(1) GDPR) or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10 GDPR.[19]

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 30 GDPR

References

  1. This obligation, which replaces the old notification obligation where data processing activities had to be notified to DPAs (Articles 18-19 Directive 95/46/EC), represents the expression of several data processing principles. On the one hand, it promotes accountability by allowing the controller to keep track of its processing and amend it where necessary. On the other hand, it increases the overall transparency of the processing and makes it easier for data subjects to exercise their rights. In practice, the record of processing activities is an updated written account of the main elements of the processing.
  2. In case of joint controllership, it is necessary to list the names and contact details of all joint controllers (Article 26(1) GDPR). Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2019).
  3. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 30, margin number 17 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  4. Bertermann, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 10 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).
  5. Kotschy, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 620 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  6. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 30, margin number 19 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  7. CJEU, C-154/21, RW v Österreichische Post, 12 January 2023, among the others, margin number 24 (available here).
  8. In a broadly similar sense, Kotschy, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 620 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  9. Kotschy, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 622 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  10. Bertermann, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).
  11. Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 33 (C.H. Beck 2019).
  12. Scholars note that the requirement to specify the responsible person presents significant challenges, particularly for processors engaged in large-scale businesses such as cloud service providers, hosting providers, or software-as-a-service platforms, as they frequently work with thousands or even hundreds of thousands of controllers. In most cases, the disclosure of these extensive lists of controllers holds little relevance for the supervisory authority. Therefore, a safeguard clause such as "if possible" would have been welcomed in this case. See, Bertermann, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 17 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).
  13. "Which kind of processors should be included is not explained: they could be involved either by having delegated processing tasks to the documenting processor or by being sub-processors of the documenting processor. In both cases there would have to exist a contract between the documenting processor and the orher processor or processors, in which case their identity must be known and recorded anyway by the documenting processor, which is also the case with regard to the names of the representative (Article 27) and data protection officer (Article 37) both of which are also required under Article 30(2)(a)." See Kotschy, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 30 GDPR, p. 623 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  14. Bogendorfer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 42 (Manz 2021).
  15. An example of a ROPA is provided by the French data protection authority in electronic format. The document, in the form of an Excel file, includes all the fields required by Article 30 GDPR for both the controller and the processor. It also offers numerous examples to aid in understanding the meaning of the various elements mentioned in the provision (accessed on 5.6.2023, available here).
  16. Hartung, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 30, margin number 31 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition).
  17. DSK, Datenschutzkonferenz, ‘Hinweise zum Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten’, Art. 30 DS-GVO, February 2018, p. 3 (available here).
  18. The record of processing activities may contain additional information or be voluntarily documented in greater detail (particularly if it serves as a compliance tool), and it might also include trade secrets (such as technical and organizational measures implemented). Bogendorfer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 30 GDPR, margin number 50 (Manz 2021).
  19. The WP29 underlines that the wording of Article 30(5) is clear in providing that the three types of processing to which the derogation does not apply are alternative (“or”) and the occurrence of any one of them alone triggers the obligation to maintain the record of processing activities. See, WP29, Position Paper on the derogations from the obligation to maintain records of processing activities pursuant to Article 30(5) GDPR, p. 2 (available here).