menu MENU
arrow_back Back to the list of all Articles
Change country (Currently : Turkey) language
Contact our local member in Turkey mail_outline
Visit the website of CBL Law office account_balance

arrow_backPrevious Article
Article 36
Next Articlearrow_forward

Prior consultation

Official
Texts Guidelines Caselaw Review of
EU Regulation Review of
Nat. Regulation
Show key term(s) and Article(s) related to article 36 of the Regulation keyboard_arrow_down Hide key term(s) and Article(s) related to article 36 keyboard_arrow_up

Articles related to article 36

Key words related to article 36

Show the recitals of the Regulation related to article 36 keyboard_arrow_down Hide the recitals of the Regulation related to article 36 keyboard_arrow_up

(37) A group of undertakings should cover a controlling undertaking and its controlled undertakings, whereby the controlling undertaking should be the undertaking which can exert a dominant influence over the other undertakings by virtue, for example, of ownership, financial participation or the rules which govern it or the power to have personal data protection rules implemented. An undertaking which controls the processing of personal data in undertakings affiliated to it should be regarded, together with those undertakings, as a group of undertakings.

(94) Where a data protection impact assessment indicates that the processing would, in the absence of safeguards, security measures and mechanisms to mitigate the risk, result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons and the controller is of the opinion that the risk cannot be mitigated by reasonable means in terms of available technologies and costs of implementation, the supervisory authority should be consulted prior to the start of processing activities. Such high risk is likely to result from certain types of processing and the extent and frequency of processing, which may result also in a realisation of damage or interference with the rights and freedoms of the natural person. The supervisory authority should respond to the request for consultation within a specified period. However, the absence of a reaction of the supervisory authority within that period should be without prejudice to any intervention of the supervisory authority in accordance with its tasks and powers laid down in this Regulation, including the power to prohibit processing operations. As part of that consultation process, the outcome of a data protection impact assessment carried out with regard to the processing at issue may be submitted to the supervisory authority, in particular the measures envisaged to mitigate the risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

(95) The processor should assist the controller, where necessary and upon request, in ensuring compliance with the obligations deriving from the carrying out of data protection impact assessments and from prior consultation of the supervisory authority.

(96) A consultation of the supervisory authority should also take place in the course of the preparation of a legislative or regulatory measure which provides for the processing of personal data, in order to ensure compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and in particular to mitigate the risk involved for the data subject.

Show the recitals of the Directive related to article 36 keyboard_arrow_down Hide the recitals of the Directive related to article 36 keyboard_arrow_up

(52) Whereas, in this context, ex post facto verification by the competent authorities must in general be considered a sufficient measure;

(53) Whereas, however, certain processing operation are likely to pose specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of their nature, their scope or their purposes, such as that of excluding individuals from a right, benefit or a contract, or by virtue of the specific use of new technologies; whereas it is for Member States, if they so wish, to specify such risks in their legislation;

(54) Whereas with regard to all the processing undertaken in society, the amount posing such specific risks should be very limited; whereas Member States must provide that the supervisory authority, or the data protection official in cooperation with the authority, check such processing prior to it being carried out; whereas following this prior check, the supervisory authority may, according to its national law, give an opinion or an authorization regarding the processing; whereas such checking may equally take place in the course of the preparation either of a measure of the national parliament or of a measure based on such a legislative measure, which defines the nature of the processing and lays down appropriate safeguards;

The GDPR

The controller must consult the supervisory authority before the implementation of the processing only when the impact assessment conducted by the controller in application of Article 35 indicates that the processing would result in a high risk in the absence of appropriate measures taken by the controller in order to mitigate the risk (Article 36).

If the authority considers that the treatment is not compliant with the Regulation, in particular if the controller has not sufficiently identified or mitigated the risk inherent to the processing, the authority then has a period of eight weeks (which may be extended by six weeks if the processing complexity so required) to advise the controller in writing - or if applicable, the processor - by exercising, if necessary, the powers referred to in Article 58 to require the provision of information, carry out investigations in the form of audit, obtain access to personal data, as well as to the premises of the controller or the processor. The final version of the Regulation specifies that the period within which the authority must give its opinion is suspended until the authority receives the information requested.

Paragraph 6 determines the terms of the request for consultation: the controller must inform the supervisory authority on the allocation of responsibilities between the controller, the possible joint controllers and the processors; the purposes and the methods of processing; measures and safeguards provided to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects; if necessary, contact details of the data protection officer; the impact analysis carried out and any other information requested by the supervisory authority.

As this already existed in some countries, the Regulation provides that Member States shall consult the supervisory authority as part of the preparation of a proposal for a legislative measure or a regulatory measure relating to personal data processing (paragraph 4).

Member States may also require that the controllers consult the supervisory authority and have its prior approval for the processing of data carried out in the context of a task performed in the public interest, including the processing of data relating to social protection and public health.

The Directive

Article 20 of the Directive required Member States to define categories of processing called "at risk" i.e., those likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. These included categories of processing that, because of their nature, scope or purposes are likely to exclude individuals from benefiting from a right, provision or contract, or those who may present risks, due to the particular use of a new technology (see recital 53).

Before these categories of processing are carried out, prior evaluations were to be made by the supervisory authority or the data protection officer in cooperation with the supervisory authority.

Such prior evaluation could also be made in the context of preparation either of a measure of the national parliament or of a measure based on such a legislative measure, which define the nature of the processing and lay down appropriate safeguards.

Potential issues

It is therefore the responsibility of the controller – or the processor – to consult the supervisory authority if the result of the impact assessment reveals that the processing creates a high risk that cannot be mitigated without the intervention of the controller.

The exact task of the authority is not clear either: is the consultation intended to have the controller “advised” by the authority in taking adequate measures or being  prevented from implementing the processing in question? Member States will have to specify actually whether it comes to a prior authorization procedure and whether the controllers must follow the opinion of the authority.

arrow_back Previous Article • Article 36 • Next Article arrow_forward
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 36 Next Article arrow_forward

Summary

European Union

European Union

Retour au sommaire

Article 29 Working Party

Guidelines on the Lead Supervisory Authority - wp244rev.01 (5 April 2017)

(Endorsed by the EDPB)

Identifying a lead supervisory authority is only relevant where a controller or processor is carrying out the cross-border processing of personal data. Article 4(23) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines ‘cross-border processing’ as either the:

- processing of personal data which takes place in the context of the activities of establishments in more than one Member State of a controller or processor in the Union where the controller or processor is established in more than one Member State; or the

- processing of personal data which takes place in the context of the activities of a single establishment of a controller or processor in the Union but which substantially affects or is likely to substantially affect data subjects in more than one Member State.

This means that where an organisation has establishments in France and Romania, for example, and the processing of personal data takes place in the context of their activities, then this will constitute cross-border processing.

Alternatively, the organisation may only carry out processing activity in the context of its establishment in France. However, if the activity substantially affects – or is likely to substantially affect - data subjects in France and Romania then this will also constitute crossborder processing.

Link

Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) - wp248rev.01 (4 October 2017)

(Endorsed by the EDPB)

Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) will apply from 25 May 2018. Article 35 of the GDPR introduces the concept of a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), as does Directive 2016/680.

A DPIA is a process designed to describe the processing, assess its necessity and proportionality and help manage the risks to the rights and freedoms of natural persons resulting from the processing of personal data by assessing them and determining the measures to address them. DPIAs are important tools for accountability, as they help controllers not only to comply with requirements of the GDPR, but also to demonstrate that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure compliance with the Regulation (see also article 24). In other words, a DPIA is a process for building and demonstrating compliance.

Under the GDPR, non-compliance with DPIA requirements can lead to fines imposed by the competent supervisory authority. Failure to carry out a DPIA when the processing is subject to a DPIA (Article 35(1) and (3)-(4)), carrying out a DPIA in an incorrect way (Article 35(2) and (7) to (9)), or failing to consult the competent supervisory authority where required (Article 36(3)(e)), can result in an administrative fine of up to 10M€, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 2 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

These Guidelines take account of:
- the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29) Statement 14/EN WP 218;
- the WP29 Guidelines on Data Protection Officer 16/EN WP 243;
- the WP29 Opinion on Purpose limitation 13/EN WP 203;
- international standards.

In line with the risk-based approach embodied by the GDPR, carrying out a DPIA is not mandatory for every processing operation. A DPIA is only required when the processing is “likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons” (Article 35(1)). In order to ensure a consistent interpretation of the circumstances in which a DPIA is mandatory (Article 35(3)), the present guidelines firstly aim to clarify this notion and provide criteria for the lists to be adopted by Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) under Article 35(4).

According to Article 70(1)(e), the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) will be able to issue guidelines, recommendations and best practices in order to encourage a consistent application of the GDPR. The purpose of this document is to anticipate such future work of the EDPB and therefore to clarify the relevant provisions of the GDPR in order to help controllers to comply with the law and to provide legal certainty for controllers who are required to carry out a DPIA.

These Guidelines also seek to promote the development of:
- a common European Union list of processing operations for which a DPIA is mandatory (Article 35(4));
- a common EU list of processing operations for which a DPIA is not necessary (Article 35(5));
- common criteria on the methodology for carrying out a DPIA (Article 35(5));
- common criteria for specifying when the supervisory authority shall be consulted (Article 36(1));
- recommendations, where possible, building on the experience gained in EU Member States.

Link

Retour au sommaire
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 36 Next Article arrow_forward

Summary

European Union

European Union

CJEU caselaw

C-92/09 ; C-93/09 (9 November 2010) - Volker und Markus Schecke et Eifert

1.      Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 of 26 November 2007, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) are invalid in so far as, with regard to natural persons who are beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof.

2.      The invalidity of the provisions of European Union law mentioned in paragraph 1 of this operative part does not allow any action to be brought to challenge the effects of the publication of the lists of beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid carried out by the national authorities on the basis of those provisions during the period prior to the date on which the present judgment is delivered.

3.      The second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not placing the personal data protection official under an obligation to keep the register provided for by that provision before an operation for the processing of personal data, such as that resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1437/2007, and from Regulation No 259/2008, is carried out.

4.      Article 20 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as not imposing an obligation on the Member States to make the publication of information resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1437/2007, and from Regulation No 259/2008 subject to the prior checks for which that Article 20 provides.

Opinion of Advocate general

Judgment of the Court

Retour au sommaire Retour au sommaire
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 36 Next Article arrow_forward
Regulation
1e 2e

Art. 36

1.   The controller shall consult the supervisory authority prior to processing where a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 indicates that the processing would result in a high risk in the absence of measures taken by the controller to mitigate the risk.

2.   Where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing referred to in paragraph 1 would infringe this Regulation, in particular where the controller has insufficiently identified or mitigated the risk, the supervisory authority shall, within period of up to eight weeks of receipt of the request for consultation, provide written advice to the controller and, where applicable to the processor, and may use any of its powers referred to in Article 58. That period may be extended by six weeks, taking into account the complexity of the intended processing. The supervisory authority shall inform the controller and, where applicable, the processor, of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request for consultation together with the reasons for the delay. Those periods may be suspended until the supervisory authority has obtained information it has requested for the purposes of the consultation.

3.   When consulting the supervisory authority pursuant to paragraph 1, the controller shall provide the supervisory authority with:

a) where applicable, the respective responsibilities of the controller, joint controllers and processors involved in the processing, in particular for processing within a group of undertakings

b) the purposes and means of the intended processing;

c) the measures and safeguards provided to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects pursuant to this Regulation;

d) where applicable, the contact details of the data protection officer;

e) the data protection impact assessment provided for in Article 35; and

f) any other information requested by the supervisory authority.

4.   Member States shall consult the supervisory authority during the preparation of a proposal for a legislative measure to be adopted by a national parliament, or of a regulatory measure based on such a legislative measure, which relates to processing.

5.   Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member State law may require controllers to consult with, and obtain prior authorisation from, the supervisory authority in relation to processing by a controller for the performance of a task carried out by the controller in the public interest, including processing in relation to social protection and public health.
1st proposal close

Art. 34

1.           The controller or the processor as the case may be shall obtain an authorisation from the supervisory authority prior to the processing of personal data, in order to ensure the compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and in particular to mitigate the risks involved for the data subjects where a controller or processor adopts contractual clauses as provided for in point (d) of Article 42(2) or does not provide for the appropriate safeguards in a legally binding instrument as referred to in Article 42(5) for the transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organisation.

2.           The controller or processor acting on the controller's behalf shall consult the supervisory authority prior to the processing of personal data in order to ensure the compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and in particular to mitigate the risks involved for the data subjects where:

(a)     a data protection impact assessment as provided for in Article 33 indicates that processing operations are by virtue of their nature, their scope or their purposes, likely to present a high degree of specific risks; or

(b)     the supervisory authority deems it necessary to carry out a prior consultation on processing operations that are likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of their nature, their scope and/or their purposes, and specified according to paragraph 4.

3.           Where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing does not comply with this Regulation, in particular where risks are insufficiently identified or mitigated, it shall prohibit the intended processing and make appropriate proposals to remedy such incompliance.

4.           The supervisory authority shall establish and make public a list of the processing operations which are subject to prior consultation pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 2. The supervisory authority shall communicate those lists to the European Data Protection Board.

5.           Where the list provided for in paragraph 4 involves processing activities which are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in several Member States, or to the monitoring of their behaviour, or may substantially affect the free movement of personal data within the Union, the supervisory authority shall apply the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 57 prior to the adoption of the list.

6.           The controller or processor shall provide the supervisory authority with the data protection impact assessment provided for in Article 33 and, on request, with any other information to allow the supervisory authority to make an assessment of the compliance of the processing and in particular of the risks for the protection of personal data of the data subject and of the related safeguards.

7.           Member States shall consult the supervisory authority in the preparation of a legislative measure to be adopted by the national parliament or of a measure based on such a legislative measure, which defines the nature of the processing, in order to ensure the compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and in particular to mitigate the risks involved for the data subjects.

8.           The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 86 for the purpose of further specifying the criteria and requirements for determining the high degree of specific risk referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2.

9.           The Commission may set out standard forms and procedures for prior authorisations and consultations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, and standard forms and procedures for informing the supervisory authorities pursuant to paragraph 6. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 87(2).
2nd proposal close

Art. 34

1. (…)

2. The controller (...) shall consult the supervisory authority prior to the processing of personal data where a data protection impact assessment as provided for in Article 33 indicates that the processing would result in a high (...) risk in the absence of measures to be taken by the controller to mitigate the risk.

3. Where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing referred to in paragraph 2 would not comply with this Regulation, in particular where the controller has insufficiently identified or mitigated the risk, it shall within a maximum period of 6 weeks following the request for consultation give advice to the data controller , in writing, and may use any of its powers referred to in Article 53 (...). This period may be extended for a further six weeks, taking into account the complexity of the intended processing. Where the extended period applies, the controller or processor shall be informed within one month of receipt of the request of the reasons for the delay.

4.(...)

5.(...)

6.When consulting the supervisory authority pursuant to paragraph 2, the controller (...) shall provide the supervisory authority, with

(a) where applicable, the respective responsibilities of controller, joint controllers and processors involved in the processing, in particular for processing within a group of undertakings;

(b) the purposes and means of the intended processing;

(c) the measures and safeguards provided to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects pursuant to this Regulation;

(d) where applicable , the contact details of the data protection officer;

(e) the data protection impact assessment as provided for in Article 33; and

(f) any (...) other information requested by the supervisory authority (...).

7. Member States shall consult the supervisory authority during the preparation of a proposal for a legislative measure adopted by a national parliament or of a regulatory measure based on such a legislative measure which provide for the processing of personal data (...).

7a. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, Member States' law may require controllers to consult with, and obtain prior authorisation from, the supervisory authority in relation to the processing of personal data by a controller for the performance of a task carried out by the controller in the public interest, including the processing of such data in relation to social protection and public health.

8. (...)

9. (...)
Directive close

Art. 20

1. Member States shall determine the processing operations likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects and shall check that these processing operations are examined prior to the start thereof.

2. Such prior checks shall be carried out by the supervisory authority following receipt of a notification from the controller or by the data protection official, who, in cases of doubt, must consult the supervisory authority.

3. Member States may also carry out such checks in the context of preparation either of a measure of the national parliament or of a measure based on such a legislative measure, which define the nature of the processing and lay down appropriate safeguards.
Turkey
compare_arrows

Serbia close

Article 55

Prior Consultation of the Commissioner

Where a data protection impact assessment carried out in accordance with Article 54 of this Law indicates that the envisaged processing operations would result in a high risk if measures to mitigate the risk are not taken, the controller shall be obliged to request the opinion of the Commissioner prior to commencing the processing operation.

Where the Commissioner considers that the envisaged processing operations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article may infringe the provisions of this Law, in particular where the controller has not appropriately assessed or mitigated the risk, the Commissioner shall be obliged, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the request, to provide a written opinion to the controller or processor, where it submitted the request, and, where necessary, to use the powers referred to in Article 79 of this Law.

The period referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article may be extended by 45 days, taking into account the complexity of the envisaged processing operations, and the Commissioner shall be obliged to inform the controller or processor, where it submitted the request, of the delay and the reasons for the delay in providing the opinion, within 30 days of receipt of the request for an opinion.

The time limits referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article shall not begin to run until the Commissioner receives all requested information necessary for providing the opinion.

Together with the request for an opinion, the controller shall be obliged to provide the Commissioner with information on:

1.         the responsibilities of the controller and, where they exist, joint controllers and processors involved in the processing, in particular where processing is carried out within a group of undertakings;

2.         the purposes and means of the envisaged processing;

3.         technical, organisational and personnel measures, as well as safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in accordance with this Law;

4.         the contact details of the data protection officer, where designated;

5.         the data protection impact assessment referred to in Article 54 of this Law;

6.         any other information requested by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner may draw up and publicly publish on its website a list of types of processing operations in respect of which its opinion must be requested.

Public authorities proposing the adoption of laws and other regulations based on laws which contain provisions on the processing of personal data shall be obliged, during their preparation, to request the opinion of the Commissioner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
arrow_back Previous Article • Article 36 Next Article arrow_forward
close

2016 - www.itiplaw.eu.