Article 31 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
Line 197: Line 197:


=== Cooperation ===
=== Cooperation ===
Article 31 GDPR establishes a legal obligation for controllers and processors, including their representatives, to cooperate with DPAs “''in the exercise of'' [their] ''tasks''”.
Article 31 GDPR establishes a legal obligation for controllers and processors, including their representatives, to cooperate with DPA “''in the exercise of'' ''its'' ''tasks''” on request.


In general terms, the content of the obligation to cooperate is therefore initially based on the - very wide - tasks and powers of the supervisory authority. For instance, under [[Article 57 GDPR|Article 57(1) GDPR]], each supervisory authority shall, among the others, “''monitor and enforce the application of this Regulation''” as well as “''conduct investigations on the application of this Regulation''”. Article 58(1) GDPR requires the controller and the processor “''to provide any information it requires for the performance of its tasks''”.  
==== On request ====
The recipients of the provision are obligated to cooperate with the supervisory authority solely upon its request. They are not required to take proactive measures unless explicitly specified in the Regulation, such as in Articles 33 and 36. The supervisory authority has an obligation to formulate requests in a clear and specific manner, ensuring that the recipients of the request understand the expectations set by the authority. Naturally, cooperation entails that the recipients of the request promptly respond to written inquiries from the supervisory authority within a reasonable timeframe.<ref>''Raum,'' in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin numbers 6-11 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).</ref>


In addition to these general clauses, the GDPR includes specific cases of cooperation with the supervisory authority. For instance, further cooperation obligations arise from Article 30(4), which requires the provision of records of processing activities upon request, and Article 33(1) and (2), which mandate the obligation to report a data breach.  
==== Shall cooperate ====
The controller and the processor and, where applicable, their representatives, shall cooperate, on request, with the supervisory authority in the performance of its tasks. In general terms, the content of the obligation to cooperate is therefore initially based on the - very wide - tasks and powers of the supervisory authority.  


The tasks and powers outlined in Articles 57 and 58 as well as in other specific provisions of the GDPR (see above) always involve a certain degree of cooperation. On the controller's side, this encompasses both obligations to actively collaborate with the authority or passively tolerate a certain action, depending on the specific task or power being carrying out. For instance, Article 58(1)(a) regarding the provision of information implies a duty to actively cooperate, while Article 58(1)(e) regarding access to personal data establishes an obligation to simply tolerate the presence of the authority's staff.<ref>''Bogendorfer'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 4 (Manz 2022).</ref>  
The majority of such tasks and powers are listed in Articles 57 and 58 GDPR. For instance, under [[Article 57 GDPR|Article 57(1) GDPR]], each supervisory authority shall, among the others, “''monitor and enforce the application of this Regulation''”<ref>Consequently, the supervisory authority has the authority to initiate inquiries with controllers, processors, and their representatives, even in the absence of a specific cause or prior indications of GDPR violations. The altered relationship, as outlined in paragraph 2, necessitates that controllers and processors engage in cooperation in accordance with the GDPR as a fundamental principle. This cooperation encompasses the obligation to respond to inquiries even in the absence of a specific cause. This provision can prove valuable to regulators seeking to gain understanding of prevalent practices within a particular industry. ''Polenz'', in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 9 (NOMOS 2019).</ref> as well as “''conduct investigations on the application of this Regulation''”. Article 58(1) GDPR requires the controller and the processor “''to provide any information it requires for the performance of its tasks''”. In addition to these general clauses, the GDPR includes specific cases of cooperation with the supervisory authority. For instance, further cooperation obligations arise from Article 30(4), which requires the provision of records of processing activities upon request, and Article 33(1) and (2), which mandate the obligation to report a data breach.   


Providing information can conflict with the right against self-incrimination.  
The tasks and powers outlined in Articles 57 and 58 as well as in other specific provisions of the GDPR (see above) always involve a certain degree of cooperation. On the controller's side, this encompasses both obligations to actively collaborate with the authority or passively tolerate a certain action, depending on the specific task or power being carrying out. For instance, Article 58(1)(a) regarding the provision of information implies a duty to actively cooperate, while Article 58(1)(e) regarding access to personal data establishes an obligation to simply tolerate the presence of the authority's staff.<ref>''Bogendorfer'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 4 (Manz 2022).</ref> The distinction holds some significance as it allows for an important differentiation. There seems to be no doubt regarding the obligation to tolerate - meaning not being able to oppose - any visits or inspections conducted by the data protection authority (e.g., Article 51(1)(b) of the GDPR). Simultaneously, there are no doubts that, from an active standpoint, the controller or processor is required to provide all documentary evidence necessary to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR. This includes, demonstrating the implementation of suitable technical and organizational measures as per Article 24 of the GDPR, submitting the processing register in accordance with Article 30(4) of the GDPR, documenting the completion or non-completion of a data protection impact assessment as per Article 35 of the GDPR, disclosing the rationale behind the non-appointment of a data protection officer, sharing details on measures taken in line with Article 25 (data protection by default or design) or reasons for the absence of such measures, divulging the involvement of processors, providing information on implemented data security measures, and specifying whether data has been obtained directly from the data subject.<ref>''Bogendorfer'', in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 16 (Manz 2022).</ref>   
 
Beyond these specific cases, we enter a gray area. This is a zone where, on one hand, we can still speak of a duty to cooperate with the supervisory authority, while on the other hand, elements come into play that may conflict with GDPR compliance. For example, the right to not be compelled to make statements that contain self-incriminating elements.  


In ''Orkem'', the CJEU clarifies<ref>CJEU, Case C-374/87, ''Orkem,'' 18 October 1989 (available [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0374 here]).</ref> that “''documents, even with incriminating content, must be delivered''”.<ref>''Kotschy'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 31 GDPR, p. 628 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>  
In ''Orkem'', the CJEU clarifies<ref>CJEU, Case C-374/87, ''Orkem,'' 18 October 1989 (available [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0374 here]).</ref> that “''documents, even with incriminating content, must be delivered''”.<ref>''Kotschy'', in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 31 GDPR, p. 628 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>  


Violations of this obligation are punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR, but proactive and good-faith behaviours can be taken into consideration by the DPA while deciding the amount of the administrative fine ([[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(2)(f) GDPR]]).
Violations of this obligation are punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR, but proactive and good-faith behaviours can be taken into consideration by the DPA while deciding the amount of the administrative fine ([[Article 83 GDPR|Article 83(2)(f) GDPR]]).
On request
==Decisions==
==Decisions==
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 31 GDPR]]
→ You can find all related decisions in [[:Category:Article 31 GDPR]]

Revision as of 13:26, 6 June 2023

Article 31 - Cooperation with the supervisory authority
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 31 - Cooperation with the supervisory authority

The controller and the processor and, where applicable, their representatives, shall cooperate, on request, with the supervisory authority in the performance of its tasks.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 80: Designated Representative
Where a controller or a processor not established in the Union is processing personal data of data subjects who are in the Union whose processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union, or to the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union, the controller or the processor should designate a representative, unless the processing is occasional, does not include processing, on a large scale, of special categories of personal data or the processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, and is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, taking into account the nature, context, scope and purposes of the processing or if the controller is a public authority or body. The representative should act on behalf of the controller or the processor and may be addressed by any supervisory authority. The representative should be explicitly designated by a written mandate of the controller or of the processor to act on its behalf with regard to its obligations under this Regulation. The designation of such a representative does not affect the responsibility or liability of the controller or of the processor under this Regulation. Such a representative should perform its tasks according to the mandate received from the controller or processor, including cooperating with the competent supervisory authorities with regard to any action taken to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The designated representative should be subject to enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the controller or processor.

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.

Commentary

Article 31 stipulates a legal obligation for controllers and processors to cooperate with the supervisory authority.

Cooperation

Article 31 GDPR establishes a legal obligation for controllers and processors, including their representatives, to cooperate with DPA “in the exercise of its tasks” on request.

On request

The recipients of the provision are obligated to cooperate with the supervisory authority solely upon its request. They are not required to take proactive measures unless explicitly specified in the Regulation, such as in Articles 33 and 36. The supervisory authority has an obligation to formulate requests in a clear and specific manner, ensuring that the recipients of the request understand the expectations set by the authority. Naturally, cooperation entails that the recipients of the request promptly respond to written inquiries from the supervisory authority within a reasonable timeframe.[1]

Shall cooperate

The controller and the processor and, where applicable, their representatives, shall cooperate, on request, with the supervisory authority in the performance of its tasks. In general terms, the content of the obligation to cooperate is therefore initially based on the - very wide - tasks and powers of the supervisory authority.

The majority of such tasks and powers are listed in Articles 57 and 58 GDPR. For instance, under Article 57(1) GDPR, each supervisory authority shall, among the others, “monitor and enforce the application of this Regulation[2] as well as “conduct investigations on the application of this Regulation”. Article 58(1) GDPR requires the controller and the processor “to provide any information it requires for the performance of its tasks”. In addition to these general clauses, the GDPR includes specific cases of cooperation with the supervisory authority. For instance, further cooperation obligations arise from Article 30(4), which requires the provision of records of processing activities upon request, and Article 33(1) and (2), which mandate the obligation to report a data breach.

The tasks and powers outlined in Articles 57 and 58 as well as in other specific provisions of the GDPR (see above) always involve a certain degree of cooperation. On the controller's side, this encompasses both obligations to actively collaborate with the authority or passively tolerate a certain action, depending on the specific task or power being carrying out. For instance, Article 58(1)(a) regarding the provision of information implies a duty to actively cooperate, while Article 58(1)(e) regarding access to personal data establishes an obligation to simply tolerate the presence of the authority's staff.[3] The distinction holds some significance as it allows for an important differentiation. There seems to be no doubt regarding the obligation to tolerate - meaning not being able to oppose - any visits or inspections conducted by the data protection authority (e.g., Article 51(1)(b) of the GDPR). Simultaneously, there are no doubts that, from an active standpoint, the controller or processor is required to provide all documentary evidence necessary to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR. This includes, demonstrating the implementation of suitable technical and organizational measures as per Article 24 of the GDPR, submitting the processing register in accordance with Article 30(4) of the GDPR, documenting the completion or non-completion of a data protection impact assessment as per Article 35 of the GDPR, disclosing the rationale behind the non-appointment of a data protection officer, sharing details on measures taken in line with Article 25 (data protection by default or design) or reasons for the absence of such measures, divulging the involvement of processors, providing information on implemented data security measures, and specifying whether data has been obtained directly from the data subject.[4]

Beyond these specific cases, we enter a gray area. This is a zone where, on one hand, we can still speak of a duty to cooperate with the supervisory authority, while on the other hand, elements come into play that may conflict with GDPR compliance. For example, the right to not be compelled to make statements that contain self-incriminating elements.

In Orkem, the CJEU clarifies[5] that “documents, even with incriminating content, must be delivered”.[6]

Violations of this obligation are punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR, but proactive and good-faith behaviours can be taken into consideration by the DPA while deciding the amount of the administrative fine (Article 83(2)(f) GDPR).

On request

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 31 GDPR

References

  1. Raum, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 30 GDPR, margin numbers 6-11 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).
  2. Consequently, the supervisory authority has the authority to initiate inquiries with controllers, processors, and their representatives, even in the absence of a specific cause or prior indications of GDPR violations. The altered relationship, as outlined in paragraph 2, necessitates that controllers and processors engage in cooperation in accordance with the GDPR as a fundamental principle. This cooperation encompasses the obligation to respond to inquiries even in the absence of a specific cause. This provision can prove valuable to regulators seeking to gain understanding of prevalent practices within a particular industry. Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 9 (NOMOS 2019).
  3. Bogendorfer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 4 (Manz 2022).
  4. Bogendorfer, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 31 GDPR, margin number 16 (Manz 2022).
  5. CJEU, Case C-374/87, Orkem, 18 October 1989 (available here).
  6. Kotschy, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 31 GDPR, p. 628 (Oxford University Press 2020).