Article 37 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
Line 211: Line 211:


==Commentary==
==Commentary==
Article 37 GDPR reaffirms the importance of the role of the Data Protection Officer (DPO). Indeed, the importance of appointing a DPO was confirmed by the European Data Protection Supervisor when they stated that “''the Data Protection Officer is fundamental in insuring the respect of data protection principles within institutions/bodies''”.<ref>EDPS, ‘Position Paper on the Role of Data Protection Officers in Ensuring Effective Compliance with Regulation (EC) 45/2001’, 28 November 2005, p. 3 (available [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/05-11-28_dpo_paper_en.pdf here]).</ref> The notion of appointing a DPO has its roots in Article 18(2) of the Data Protection Directive 1995 (Directive 95/46/EC) (DPD). However, although the DPD spoke about the designation of a DPO, it did not make this mandatory. With the GDPR’s introduction of the requirement to appoint a DPO in certain instances, the importance of the role embodied by the DPO can be said to have become pivotal. The role of the DPO is especially important for demonstrating compliance with data protection principles, which lies at the heart of the principle of accountability ([[Article 24 GDPR|Articles 5(2) and 24 GDPR]]).<ref>EDPS, ‘Position paper on the role of Data Protection Officers of the EU institutions and bodies’, 30 September 2018, p. 14 (available [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/18-09-30_dpo_position_paper_en.pdf here]).</ref> <blockquote><u>EDPB Guidelines</u>: on this Article, please see [https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/data-protection-officer_en Data Protection Officer - WP29]</blockquote>
Article 37 GDPR reaffirms<ref>The notion of appointing a DPO has its roots in Article 18(2) of the Data Protection Directive 1995 (Directive 95/46/EC) (DPD). However, although the DPD spoke about the designation of a DPO, it did not make this mandatory. With the GDPR’s introduction of the requirement to appoint a DPO in certain instances, the importance of the role embodied by the DPO can be said to have become pivotal.</ref> the importance of the role of the Data Protection Officer (DPO).<ref>Indeed, the importance of appointing a DPO was confirmed by the European Data Protection Supervisor when they stated that “''the Data Protection Officer is fundamental in insuring the respect of data protection principles within institutions/bodies''”. EDPS, ‘Position Paper on the Role of Data Protection Officers in Ensuring Effective Compliance with Regulation (EC) 45/2001’, 28 November 2005, p. 3 (available [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/05-11-28_dpo_paper_en.pdf here]).</ref> The role of the DPO is especially important for demonstrating compliance with data protection principles, which lies at the heart of the principle of accountability ([[Article 24 GDPR|Articles 5(2) and 24 GDPR]]).<ref>EDPS, ‘Position paper on the role of Data Protection Officers of the EU institutions and bodies’, 30 September 2018, p. 14 (available [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/18-09-30_dpo_position_paper_en.pdf here]).</ref> Paragraph 1 imposes on controllers and processors the obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) under certain conditions. Paragraph 2 provides the possibility of appointing a DPO for the entire group of undertakings, while paragraph 3 establishes a similar rule for public authorities. Paragraph 4 extends the requirement of appointing a DPO beyond the cases specified in paragraph 1, where this is mandated by the legislation of member states. Paragraphs 5 and 6 establish competence requirements for the DPO, obliging them to perform the tasks outlined in Article 39 and allowing the position to be held by individuals already part of the controller's or processor's staff or based on an external contractual arrangement. Finally, paragraph 7 mandates the controller to publish the DPO's contact details and communicate them to the relevant data protection authority.
=== (1) Obligation to designate a data protection officer ===
Article 37, Paragraph 1, outlines the cases that mandate the appointment of a Data Protection Officer (DPO). This provision applies to both controllers and processors whose data processing activities entail higher risks compared to other processing operations, necessitating the additional presence of a DPO as a safeguard for data subjects and to facilitate potential interventions by data protection authorities. The DPO plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance with data protection regulations and in proactively addressing data privacy and security concerns within organizations engaged in more sensitive or high-risk data processing activities.
 
==== The controller and the processor ====
Article 37 pertains to the designation of a DPO and applies to both controllers and processors. The obligation to appoint a DPO depends on whether the specific criteria for mandatory designation are met (see below, ''In any case where''). In certain cases, either the controller or the processor alone may be required to appoint a DPO, while in other situations, both the controller and its processor must appoint one and ensure their cooperation. It is essential to note that even if the controller meets the criteria for mandatory DPO designation, its processor may not be obligated to appoint a DPO. Nevertheless, it is considered a best practice for the processor to appoint a DPO voluntarily.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 9 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref><blockquote><u>Example</u>: A small family business active in the distribution of household appliances in a single town uses the services of a processor whose core activity is to provide website analytics services and assistance with targeted advertising and marketing. The activities of the family business and its customers do not generate processing of data on a ‘large scale’, considering the small number of customers and the relatively limited activities. However, the activities of the processor, having many customers like this small enterprise, taken together, are carrying out large-scale processing. The processor must therefore designate a DPO under Article 37(1)(b). At the same time, the family business itself is not under an obligation to designate a DPO.</blockquote>
 
==== Shall designate a DPO ====
The designation is a typical action carried out by both the controller and the processor. As a result, there is no room for co-decision activities, such as involving potential union representatives within the company. The form of the designation is flexible in the absence of legislative indications. Consequently, at least in theory, the absence of a written form does not render the designation invalid. However, this lack of a formal record creates evident challenges concerning accountability and the ability to demonstrate the fact of the designation (Article 24 GDPR).
 
The Data Protection Officer (DPO) does not necessarily need to be a new, additional specialist hired by the company or authority. Instead, an existing employee can also fulfill this role, either full-time or part-time, in addition to the possibility of engaging an external service provider. If the underlying employment or service relationship is terminated in accordance with the relevant national law, the basis for the appointment as a DPO also ceases to exist.<ref>Similarly, the grounds for dismissal of the basic relationship are determined by the labor, contract, or civil service law of the respective Member State. See, ''Heberlein'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 37 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H.Beck 2018, 2nd Edition 2018).</ref>


=== (1) Obligation to designate a data protection officer ===
The GDPR does not specifically regulate the employment or service contract with an external DPO under labor or civil service law, including the establishment and termination of this relationship. In particular, the GDPR does not grant protection against dismissal for the employment relationship under labor law. The prohibition of dismissal, as stated in Article 38(3) specifically pertains to the performance of DPO duties and does not extend to unrelated reasons beyond the scope of the DPO's responsibilities.<ref>''Heberlein'', in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 37 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H.Beck 2018, 2nd Edition 2018).</ref>
Article 37(1) GDPR specifies three conditions in which the appointment of a DPO is mandatory. First, when processing is carried out by a public authority or body. Second, when the core activities of a controller or processor involve the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large-scale. Third, when the core activities of a controller or processor involve the processing of [[Article 9 GDPR]] or [[Article 10 GDPR]] data on a large-scale.
 
==== In any case where ====
Article 37(1) GDPR specifies three conditions in which the designation of a DPO is mandatory. First, when processing is carried out by a public authority or body. Second, when the core activities of a controller or processor involve the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large-scale. Third, when the core activities of a controller or processor involve the processing of [[Article 9 GDPR]] or [[Article 10 GDPR]] data on a large-scale.
 
===== (a) Public authorities and bodies =====
A DPO is always required when processing is carried out by a public authority or body. The GDPR does not define what constitutes a public authority or body. The Working Party 29, endorsed by the EDPB, states that the notion is to be determined under national law. In this view, public authorities and bodies may include national, regional, and local authorities, but the term may also stretch to include other bodies that are governed by public law. In such case, the designation of a DPO is mandatory.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 6 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref>
 
However, there are cases where a public task may also be carried out by other natural or legal persons in certain regulated sectors such as public transport services, water and energy supply, road infrastructure, public service broadcasting, public housing or disciplinary bodies for regulated professions. In these cases, data subjects may be in a very similar situation to when their data are processed by a public authority or body. In particular, "''data can be processed for similar purposes and individuals often have similarly little or no choice over whether and how their data will be processed and may thus require the additional protection that the designation of a DPO can bring''." Here, the designation of a DPO is not mandatory but recommended.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 6 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]). The WP29 also rightfully points out that "''Such a DPO’s activity covers all processing operations carried out, including those that are not related to the performance of a public task or exercise of official duty (e.g. the management of an employee database).''"</ref>
 
Finally, Article 37(1)(a) GDPR makes clear that judicial authorities are excluded from the requirement to have a DPO, the reason for this being the principle that the judiciary should be independent from the enforcement provisions of the GDPR.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas,'' in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 37 GDPR, p. 692 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> However, this derogation does not apply in instances where personal data processing is carried out by court administrations when they act as public authorities in a way that is linked to their judicial mandate.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas,'' in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 37 GDPR, p. 692 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>
 
===== (b) Regular and systematic monitoring =====
Article 37(1)(b) GDPR imposes the obligation of appointing a DPO on controllers or processors whose core activities involve regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale.  


==== (a) Public authorities and bodies ====
====== Core activities ======
The GDPR does not define what constitutes a public authority or body, however, the Article 29 Working Party (WP29) has stated that this is considered to be something that falls within the purview of national law.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref> Though public authorities and bodies may include national, regional, and local authorities, the term may also stretch to include other bodies that are governed by public law. In such instances, the designation of a DPO is obligatory.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref> Even in the instances where a natural or legal person exercises a public task, there is the need to designate a DPO. The WP29 also recommends that in instances where private organizations carry out public tasks, they also designate a DPO. Article 37(1)(a) GDPR makes clear that judicial authorities are excluded from the requirement to have a DPO, the reason for this being the principle that the judiciary should be independent from the enforcement provisions of the GDPR.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas,'' in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 37 GDPR, p. 692 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> However, this derogation does not apply in instances where personal data processing is carried out by court administrations when they act as public authorities in a way that is linked to their judicial mandate.<ref>''Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas,'' in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 37 GDPR, p. 692 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref>
Article 37(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(1)(c) GDPR also extends the requirement to appoint a DPO to controllers or processors whose core activities require either the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large-scale, or involve processing of data under [[Article 9 GDPR]] or [[Article 10 GDPR]] Recital 97 GDPR clarifies that the core activities of a controller are those relating to “''primary activities and do not relate to the processing of personal data as ancillary activities''”. The WP29 has clarified that the notion of ‘''core activities''can be considered as “''the key operations necessary to achieve the controller’s or processor’s goals''”.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’), 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 7 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref> However, the ‘core activities’ should not be interpreted in such a way that they exclude processing operations that form an inextricable part of the controller’s or processor’s activities. The example given for this by the WP29 is a hospital which provides healthcare. Here, a hospital would need to process health data in order to be able to effectively provide healthcare. In this instance, the processing of data ''should'' be considered to be part of a hospital’s core activities, and therefore the hospital would be obliged to designate a DPO.
==== (b) Regular and systematic monitoring ====
Article 37(1)(b) GDPR imposes the obligation of appointing a DPO on controllers or processors whose core activities involve regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale. This concept of “regular and systematic monitoring” of data subjects is mentioned in Recital 24 GDPR, and includes “all forms of tracking and profiling on the internet, including for the purposes of behavioral advertising”.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref> Monitoring of data subjects can also take place outside of the context of an online environment. Specifically, the WP29 has interpreted “regular” to mean: Ongoing or occurring at particular intervals for a particular period; Recurring or repeated at fixed times; Constantly or periodically taking place. And interpreted “systematic” to mean: Occurring according to a system; Pre-arranged, organized or methodical; Taking place as part of a general plan for data collection; Carried out as part of a strategy. Examples given of regular and systematic processing activities include the operation of a telecommunications network, data-driven marketing, and location tracking, among others.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 9 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref> Recent judgments by Data Protection Authorities in Europe have shown that that fines will be issued for failing to appoint a DPO in instances where one is necessary. For example, on November 10<sup>th</sup> 2020 the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD) issued a €50,000 fine against Conseguridad SL for failing to appoint a DPO.<ref>Data Protection Authority Spain (AEPD), PS/00251/2020, 29 October 2020 (available [https://www.aepd.es/es/documento/ps-00251-2020.pdf here]).</ref> The AEPD held that since Conseguridad SL was processing the personal data of a large number of people through its installation of video surveillance cameras, it was therefore in breach of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having a DPO.<ref>Data Protection Authority Spain (AEPD), PS/00251/2020, 29 October 2020 (available [https://www.aepd.es/es/documento/ps-00251-2020.pdf here]).</ref>


==== (c) Special category or data relating to criminal convictions and offences ====
====== Regular and systematic monitoring ======
In a similar fashion to Article 37(1)(b) GDPR, Article 37(1)(c) GDPR imposes the obligation of appointing a DPO on controllers or processors whose core activities involve, on a large scale, the processing of special categories of data under [[Article 9 GDPR]] or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under [[Article 10 GDPR]]. This requirement is evidently related to the importance that there is someone within the controller’s organisational structure that understands the sensitivity of the data that is being processed, and is well versed in what the processing of this kind of data implies.
This concept of “''regular and systematic monitoring''” of data subjects is mentioned in Recital 24 GDPR, and includes “''all forms of tracking and profiling on the internet, including for the purposes of behavioral advertising''”.<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref> Monitoring of data subjects can also take place outside of the context of an online environment. Specifically, the WP29 has interpreted “''regular''” to mean: "''Ongoing or occurring at particular intervals for a particular period; Recurring or repeated at fixed times; Constantly or periodically taking place''." And interpreted “''systematic''” to mean: "''Occurring according to a system; Pre-arranged, organized or methodical; Taking place as part of a general plan for data collection; Carried out as part of a strategy. Examples given of regular and systematic processing activities include the operation of a telecommunications network, data-driven marketing, and location tracking, among others''."<ref>WP29, ''Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)''”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 9 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref> Recent judgments by Data Protection Authorities in Europe have shown that that fines will be issued for failing to appoint a DPO in instances where one is necessary. For example, on November 10<sup>th</sup> 2020 the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD) issued a €50,000 fine against Conseguridad SL for failing to appoint a DPO.<ref>Data Protection Authority Spain (AEPD), PS/00251/2020, 29 October 2020 (available [https://www.aepd.es/es/documento/ps-00251-2020.pdf here]).</ref> The AEPD held that since Conseguridad SL was processing the personal data of a large number of people through its installation of video surveillance cameras, it was therefore in breach of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having a DPO.<ref>Data Protection Authority Spain (AEPD), PS/00251/2020, 29 October 2020 (available [https://www.aepd.es/es/documento/ps-00251-2020.pdf here]).</ref>
===== 'Large-Scale' and 'Core Activities' =====
Article 37(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(1)(c) GDPR also extends the requirement to appoint a DPO to controllers or processors whose core activities require either the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large-scale, or involve processing of data under [[Article 9 GDPR]] or [[Article 10 GDPR]] Recital 97 GDPR clarifies that the core activities of a controller are those relating to “''primary activities and do not relate to the processing of personal data as ancillary activities''. The WP29 has clarified that the notion of ‘''core activities''’ can be considered as “''the key operations necessary to achieve the controller’s or processor’s goals''.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’), 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 7 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref> However, the ‘core activities’ should not be interpreted in such a way that they exclude processing operations that form an inextricable part of the controller’s or processor’s activities. The example given for this by the WP29 is a hospital which provides healthcare. Here, a hospital would need to process health data in order to be able to effectively provide healthcare. In this instance, the processing of data ''should'' be considered to be part of a hospital’s core activities, and therefore the hospital would be obliged to designate a DPO.


The term ‘''large-scale''’ with regards to processing is also not defined in the GDPR. However, Recital 91 GDPR sheds some light on what it may mean, noting that large-scale processing operations might aim to “''process a considerable amount of personal data at regional, national, or supranational level''” and might “''affect a large number of data subjects''”. In this regard, the WP29 Guidelines mention four criteria with which the large-scale nature of processing operations can be assessed: (i) the number of data subjects concerned, (ii) the volume and range of data being processed, (iii) the duration or permanence of the processing, and (iv) the geographical extent of the processing activities. Examples given by the WP29 of large-scale processing activities include the regular processing of patient data in hospitals, or the processing of data by telephone or internet service providers. In contrast, the processing of personal data by an individual physician, for example, would not be considered large-scale processing.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref>  
====== On a large scale ======
The term ‘''large-scale''’ with regards to processing is also not defined in the GDPR. However, Recital 91 GDPR sheds some light on what it may mean, noting that large-scale processing operations might aim to “''process a considerable amount of personal data at regional, national, or supranational level''” and might “''affect a large number of data subjects''”. In this regard, the WP29 Guidelines mention four criteria with which the large-scale nature of processing operations can be assessed: (i) the number of data subjects concerned, (ii) the volume and range of data being processed, (iii) the duration or permanence of the processing, and (iv) the geographical extent of the processing activities. Examples given by the WP29 of large-scale processing activities include the regular processing of patient data in hospitals, or the processing of data by telephone or internet service providers. In contrast, the processing of personal data by an individual physician, for example, would not be considered large-scale processing.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref><blockquote><u>WP29</u>: Examples of large-scale processing include: processing of patient data in the regular course of business by a hospital; processing of travel data of individuals using a city’s public transport system (e.g. tracking via travel cards); processing of real time geo-location data of customers of an international fast food chain for statistical purposes by a processor specialised in providing these services; processing of customer data in the regular course of business by an insurance company or a bank; processing of personal data for behavioural advertising by a search engine; processing of data (content, traffic, location) by telephone or internet service providers.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612048/en here]).</ref></blockquote>


===== (c) Special category or data relating to criminal convictions and offences =====
In a similar fashion to Article 37(1)(b) GDPR, Article 37(1)(c) GDPR imposes the obligation of appointing a DPO on controllers or processors whose core activities involve, on a large scale, the processing of special categories of data under [[Article 9 GDPR]] or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under [[Article 10 GDPR]]. This requirement is evidently related to the importance that there is someone within the controller’s organisational structure that understands the sensitivity of the data that is being processed, and is well versed in what the processing of this kind of data implies. For any common definition, please refer to the above commentary under Article 37(1)(b) GDPR.
=== (2) Group of undertakings ===
=== (2) Group of undertakings ===
Article 37(2) GDPR and Article 37(3) GDPR permit the designation of a single DPO for a cluster of undertakings or several public authorities or bodies. Article 37(2) GDPR states that a single DPO can be appointed for multiple undertakings, as long as the DPO is easily accessible from each establishment. The WP29 has clarified that this notion of accessibility refers to the DPO not only serving as a contact point for data subjects and DPAs , but also as a contact point internally for the organisation itself. The latter is evident from [[Article 39 GDPR|Article 39(1) GDPR]], which states that one of the tasks of a DPO is to “''to inform and advise the controller and the processor and the employees who carry out processing of their obligations pursuant to this Regulation''”. Therefore, it is also important to make sure that the contact details of the DPO are available both externally and internally.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 10 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref>  
Article 37(2) GDPR and Article 37(3) GDPR permit the designation of a single DPO for a group of undertakings as long as the DPO is easily accessible from each establishment.
 
The notion of accessibility refers to the DPO not only serving as a contact point for data subjects and DPAs, but also as a contact point internally for the organisation itself. The latter is evident from [[Article 39 GDPR|Article 39(1) GDPR]], which states that one of the tasks of a DPO is to “''to inform and advise the controller and the processor and the employees who carry out processing of their obligations pursuant to this Regulation''”. Therefore, it is also important to make sure that the contact details of the DPO are available both externally and internally.<ref>WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 10 (available [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=44100 here]).</ref>  


=== (3) Multiple public authorities or bodies ===
=== (3) Multiple public authorities or bodies ===

Revision as of 13:35, 20 July 2023

Article 37 - Designation of the data protection officer
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 37 - Designation of the data protection officer

1. The controller and the processor shall designate a data protection officer in any case where:

(a) the processing is carried out by a public authority or body, except for courts acting in their judicial capacity;
(b) the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing operations which, by virtue of their nature, their scope and/or their purposes, require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale; or
(c) the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing on a large scale of special categories of data pursuant to Article 9 and personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10.

2. A group of undertakings may appoint a single data protection officer provided that a data protection officer is easily accessible from each establishment.

3. Where the controller or the processor is a public authority or body, a single data protection officer may be designated for several such authorities or bodies, taking account of their organisational structure and size.

4. In cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1, the controller or processor or associations and other bodies representing categories of controllers or processors may or, where required by Union or Member State law shall, designate a data protection officer. The data protection officer may act for such associations and other bodies representing controllers or processors.

5. The data protection officer shall be designated on the basis of professional qualities and, in particular, expert knowledge of data protection law and practices and the ability to fulfil the tasks referred to in Article 39.

6. The data protection officer may be a staff member of the controller or processor, or fulfil the tasks on the basis of a service contract.

7. The controller or the processor shall publish the contact details of the data protection officer and communicate them to the supervisory authority.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 97: Data Protection Officer
Where the processing is carried out by a public authority, except for courts or independent judicial authorities when acting in their judicial capacity, where, in the private sector, processing is carried out by a controller whose core activities consist of processing operations that require regular and systematic monitoring of the data subjects on a large scale, or where the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing on a large scale of special categories of personal data and data relating to criminal convictions and offences, a person with expert knowledge of data protection law and practices should assist the controller or processor to monitor internal compliance with this Regulation. In the private sector, the core activities of a controller relate to its primary activities and do not relate to the processing of personal data as ancillary activities. The necessary level of expert knowledge should be determined in particular according to the data processing operations carried out and the protection required for the personal data processed by the controller or the processor. Such data protection officers, whether or not they are an employee of the controller, should be in a position to perform their duties and tasks in an independent manner.

Commentary

Article 37 GDPR reaffirms[1] the importance of the role of the Data Protection Officer (DPO).[2] The role of the DPO is especially important for demonstrating compliance with data protection principles, which lies at the heart of the principle of accountability (Articles 5(2) and 24 GDPR).[3] Paragraph 1 imposes on controllers and processors the obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) under certain conditions. Paragraph 2 provides the possibility of appointing a DPO for the entire group of undertakings, while paragraph 3 establishes a similar rule for public authorities. Paragraph 4 extends the requirement of appointing a DPO beyond the cases specified in paragraph 1, where this is mandated by the legislation of member states. Paragraphs 5 and 6 establish competence requirements for the DPO, obliging them to perform the tasks outlined in Article 39 and allowing the position to be held by individuals already part of the controller's or processor's staff or based on an external contractual arrangement. Finally, paragraph 7 mandates the controller to publish the DPO's contact details and communicate them to the relevant data protection authority.

(1) Obligation to designate a data protection officer

Article 37, Paragraph 1, outlines the cases that mandate the appointment of a Data Protection Officer (DPO). This provision applies to both controllers and processors whose data processing activities entail higher risks compared to other processing operations, necessitating the additional presence of a DPO as a safeguard for data subjects and to facilitate potential interventions by data protection authorities. The DPO plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance with data protection regulations and in proactively addressing data privacy and security concerns within organizations engaged in more sensitive or high-risk data processing activities.

The controller and the processor

Article 37 pertains to the designation of a DPO and applies to both controllers and processors. The obligation to appoint a DPO depends on whether the specific criteria for mandatory designation are met (see below, In any case where). In certain cases, either the controller or the processor alone may be required to appoint a DPO, while in other situations, both the controller and its processor must appoint one and ensure their cooperation. It is essential to note that even if the controller meets the criteria for mandatory DPO designation, its processor may not be obligated to appoint a DPO. Nevertheless, it is considered a best practice for the processor to appoint a DPO voluntarily.[4]

Example: A small family business active in the distribution of household appliances in a single town uses the services of a processor whose core activity is to provide website analytics services and assistance with targeted advertising and marketing. The activities of the family business and its customers do not generate processing of data on a ‘large scale’, considering the small number of customers and the relatively limited activities. However, the activities of the processor, having many customers like this small enterprise, taken together, are carrying out large-scale processing. The processor must therefore designate a DPO under Article 37(1)(b). At the same time, the family business itself is not under an obligation to designate a DPO.

Shall designate a DPO

The designation is a typical action carried out by both the controller and the processor. As a result, there is no room for co-decision activities, such as involving potential union representatives within the company. The form of the designation is flexible in the absence of legislative indications. Consequently, at least in theory, the absence of a written form does not render the designation invalid. However, this lack of a formal record creates evident challenges concerning accountability and the ability to demonstrate the fact of the designation (Article 24 GDPR).

The Data Protection Officer (DPO) does not necessarily need to be a new, additional specialist hired by the company or authority. Instead, an existing employee can also fulfill this role, either full-time or part-time, in addition to the possibility of engaging an external service provider. If the underlying employment or service relationship is terminated in accordance with the relevant national law, the basis for the appointment as a DPO also ceases to exist.[5]

The GDPR does not specifically regulate the employment or service contract with an external DPO under labor or civil service law, including the establishment and termination of this relationship. In particular, the GDPR does not grant protection against dismissal for the employment relationship under labor law. The prohibition of dismissal, as stated in Article 38(3) specifically pertains to the performance of DPO duties and does not extend to unrelated reasons beyond the scope of the DPO's responsibilities.[6]

In any case where

Article 37(1) GDPR specifies three conditions in which the designation of a DPO is mandatory. First, when processing is carried out by a public authority or body. Second, when the core activities of a controller or processor involve the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large-scale. Third, when the core activities of a controller or processor involve the processing of Article 9 GDPR or Article 10 GDPR data on a large-scale.

(a) Public authorities and bodies

A DPO is always required when processing is carried out by a public authority or body. The GDPR does not define what constitutes a public authority or body. The Working Party 29, endorsed by the EDPB, states that the notion is to be determined under national law. In this view, public authorities and bodies may include national, regional, and local authorities, but the term may also stretch to include other bodies that are governed by public law. In such case, the designation of a DPO is mandatory.[7]

However, there are cases where a public task may also be carried out by other natural or legal persons in certain regulated sectors such as public transport services, water and energy supply, road infrastructure, public service broadcasting, public housing or disciplinary bodies for regulated professions. In these cases, data subjects may be in a very similar situation to when their data are processed by a public authority or body. In particular, "data can be processed for similar purposes and individuals often have similarly little or no choice over whether and how their data will be processed and may thus require the additional protection that the designation of a DPO can bring." Here, the designation of a DPO is not mandatory but recommended.[8]

Finally, Article 37(1)(a) GDPR makes clear that judicial authorities are excluded from the requirement to have a DPO, the reason for this being the principle that the judiciary should be independent from the enforcement provisions of the GDPR.[9] However, this derogation does not apply in instances where personal data processing is carried out by court administrations when they act as public authorities in a way that is linked to their judicial mandate.[10]

(b) Regular and systematic monitoring

Article 37(1)(b) GDPR imposes the obligation of appointing a DPO on controllers or processors whose core activities involve regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale.

Core activities

Article 37(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(1)(c) GDPR also extends the requirement to appoint a DPO to controllers or processors whose core activities require either the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large-scale, or involve processing of data under Article 9 GDPR or Article 10 GDPR Recital 97 GDPR clarifies that the core activities of a controller are those relating to “primary activities and do not relate to the processing of personal data as ancillary activities”. The WP29 has clarified that the notion of ‘core activities’ can be considered as “the key operations necessary to achieve the controller’s or processor’s goals”.[11] However, the ‘core activities’ should not be interpreted in such a way that they exclude processing operations that form an inextricable part of the controller’s or processor’s activities. The example given for this by the WP29 is a hospital which provides healthcare. Here, a hospital would need to process health data in order to be able to effectively provide healthcare. In this instance, the processing of data should be considered to be part of a hospital’s core activities, and therefore the hospital would be obliged to designate a DPO.

Regular and systematic monitoring

This concept of “regular and systematic monitoring” of data subjects is mentioned in Recital 24 GDPR, and includes “all forms of tracking and profiling on the internet, including for the purposes of behavioral advertising”.[12] Monitoring of data subjects can also take place outside of the context of an online environment. Specifically, the WP29 has interpreted “regular” to mean: "Ongoing or occurring at particular intervals for a particular period; Recurring or repeated at fixed times; Constantly or periodically taking place." And interpreted “systematic” to mean: "Occurring according to a system; Pre-arranged, organized or methodical; Taking place as part of a general plan for data collection; Carried out as part of a strategy. Examples given of regular and systematic processing activities include the operation of a telecommunications network, data-driven marketing, and location tracking, among others."[13] Recent judgments by Data Protection Authorities in Europe have shown that that fines will be issued for failing to appoint a DPO in instances where one is necessary. For example, on November 10th 2020 the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD) issued a €50,000 fine against Conseguridad SL for failing to appoint a DPO.[14] The AEPD held that since Conseguridad SL was processing the personal data of a large number of people through its installation of video surveillance cameras, it was therefore in breach of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having a DPO.[15]

On a large scale

The term ‘large-scale’ with regards to processing is also not defined in the GDPR. However, Recital 91 GDPR sheds some light on what it may mean, noting that large-scale processing operations might aim to “process a considerable amount of personal data at regional, national, or supranational level” and might “affect a large number of data subjects”. In this regard, the WP29 Guidelines mention four criteria with which the large-scale nature of processing operations can be assessed: (i) the number of data subjects concerned, (ii) the volume and range of data being processed, (iii) the duration or permanence of the processing, and (iv) the geographical extent of the processing activities. Examples given by the WP29 of large-scale processing activities include the regular processing of patient data in hospitals, or the processing of data by telephone or internet service providers. In contrast, the processing of personal data by an individual physician, for example, would not be considered large-scale processing.[16]

WP29: Examples of large-scale processing include: processing of patient data in the regular course of business by a hospital; processing of travel data of individuals using a city’s public transport system (e.g. tracking via travel cards); processing of real time geo-location data of customers of an international fast food chain for statistical purposes by a processor specialised in providing these services; processing of customer data in the regular course of business by an insurance company or a bank; processing of personal data for behavioural advertising by a search engine; processing of data (content, traffic, location) by telephone or internet service providers.[17]

(c) Special category or data relating to criminal convictions and offences

In a similar fashion to Article 37(1)(b) GDPR, Article 37(1)(c) GDPR imposes the obligation of appointing a DPO on controllers or processors whose core activities involve, on a large scale, the processing of special categories of data under Article 9 GDPR or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under Article 10 GDPR. This requirement is evidently related to the importance that there is someone within the controller’s organisational structure that understands the sensitivity of the data that is being processed, and is well versed in what the processing of this kind of data implies. For any common definition, please refer to the above commentary under Article 37(1)(b) GDPR.

(2) Group of undertakings

Article 37(2) GDPR and Article 37(3) GDPR permit the designation of a single DPO for a group of undertakings as long as the DPO is easily accessible from each establishment.

The notion of accessibility refers to the DPO not only serving as a contact point for data subjects and DPAs, but also as a contact point internally for the organisation itself. The latter is evident from Article 39(1) GDPR, which states that one of the tasks of a DPO is to “to inform and advise the controller and the processor and the employees who carry out processing of their obligations pursuant to this Regulation”. Therefore, it is also important to make sure that the contact details of the DPO are available both externally and internally.[18]

(3) Multiple public authorities or bodies

Article 37(3) GDPR takes a similar approach, stating that multiple public authorities or bodies may also appoint a single DPO, once their organizational structure and size has been taken into account. If a single DPO is to be appointed for a variety of tasks and across such entities, it is the task of the controller or processor to ensure that the DPO can perform their activities efficiently. In other words, their acting in capacity for multiple entities must not hinder the effective execution of their tasks. To ensure that a DPO is effective, the WP29 recommends that they be located within the European Union, regardless of whether the controller or processor themselves is also established in the Union.[19]

(4) Other circumstances in which to designate a data protection officer

Article 37(4) GDPR stipulates that in instances other than those referred to in Article 37(1) GDPR, it may still be recommended or required by Member State law that a controller or processor, or groups of such, designate a DPO. This DPO may then act for such associations or other bodies representing controllers or processors. For instance, a DPO in this context could be useful in advising the groups of controllers or processors on frequently encountered issues, and could also serve as a communication channel between the represented controllers and processors, and the competent DPAs.[20]

(5) Expertise and skills of the DPO

Article 37(5) GDPR specifies that the DPO shall be designated on the basis of their professional qualities and expert knowledge of data protection law. In particular, this provision makes reference to Article 39 GDPR, which details the DPO’s tasks. These include, but are not limited to, tasks such as informing and advising the controller and processor of their obligations under the GDPR; monitoring compliance with the GDPR and assisting in assigning responsibilities and training staff involved in processing operations; providing assistance with Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) where needed and monitoring compliance with them; and finally, cooperating with the DPA and acting as a channel of communication.

Recital 97 GDPR also states that the necessary level of expert knowledge that the DPO should have should be determined according to what processing operations are being carried out, and what level of protection is necessary for the data that is being processed. The more complex the processing activities are, and the more measures of protection are needed, the more ‘knowledgeable’ the DPO will have to be. However, as Article 39 GDPR clearly establishes, a DPO will need to know their way around the GDPR well enough in order to be able to effectively carry out the tasks required of them. Although Article 37(5) GDPR does not specify the specific qualifications that a DPO must have, knowledge of the business sector, along with an understanding of the controller and their tasks, will be an asset.

(6) DPO on the basis of a service contract

Article 37(6) GDPR allows a designated DPO to be either a controller or processor’s staff member, or to alternatively be appointed on the basis of a service contract. This provision can be interpreted as providing added flexibility to the controller or processor in deciding how to best employ a DPO for their organisation. Importantly, it also does not require that the DPO be an entirely impartial body who is not associated with the controller or processor, much like an independent auditor might be. However, it is essential that the DPO fulfils the applicable requirements of Section 4 of the GDPR – for instance, that they have no conflict of interests.

(7) Contact details of the DPO

Finally, Article 37(7) GDPR requires that the controller or processor publish the contact details of the DPO, and communicate these to the relevant DPA. One can interpret that this provision’s objective is the facilitation of communication and transparency between the data subject or DPA and the DPO. It is important to note, however, that this provision does not require that the name of the DPO be published; in other words, contact details may include the contact email address, but do not have to necessarily result in the publication of any personal data.

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 37 GDPR

References

  1. The notion of appointing a DPO has its roots in Article 18(2) of the Data Protection Directive 1995 (Directive 95/46/EC) (DPD). However, although the DPD spoke about the designation of a DPO, it did not make this mandatory. With the GDPR’s introduction of the requirement to appoint a DPO in certain instances, the importance of the role embodied by the DPO can be said to have become pivotal.
  2. Indeed, the importance of appointing a DPO was confirmed by the European Data Protection Supervisor when they stated that “the Data Protection Officer is fundamental in insuring the respect of data protection principles within institutions/bodies”. EDPS, ‘Position Paper on the Role of Data Protection Officers in Ensuring Effective Compliance with Regulation (EC) 45/2001’, 28 November 2005, p. 3 (available here).
  3. EDPS, ‘Position paper on the role of Data Protection Officers of the EU institutions and bodies’, 30 September 2018, p. 14 (available here).
  4. WP29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 9 (available here).
  5. Similarly, the grounds for dismissal of the basic relationship are determined by the labor, contract, or civil service law of the respective Member State. See, Heberlein, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 37 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H.Beck 2018, 2nd Edition 2018).
  6. Heberlein, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 37 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H.Beck 2018, 2nd Edition 2018).
  7. WP29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 6 (available here).
  8. WP29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 6 (available here). The WP29 also rightfully points out that "Such a DPO’s activity covers all processing operations carried out, including those that are not related to the performance of a public task or exercise of official duty (e.g. the management of an employee database)."
  9. Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 37 GDPR, p. 692 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  10. Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 37 GDPR, p. 692 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  11. WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 7 (available here).
  12. WP29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available here).
  13. WP29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 9 (available here).
  14. Data Protection Authority Spain (AEPD), PS/00251/2020, 29 October 2020 (available here).
  15. Data Protection Authority Spain (AEPD), PS/00251/2020, 29 October 2020 (available here).
  16. WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available here).
  17. WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 8 (available here).
  18. WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 10 (available here).
  19. WP29, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”)”, WP 243 rev.01, 5 April 2017, p. 11 (available here).
  20. Alvarez Rigaudias, Spinas, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 37 GDPR, p. 695 (Oxford University Press 2020).