Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2018):

This information should allow for easy identification of the controller and preferably allow for different forms of communications with the data controller (e.g. phone number, email, postal address etc.).

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (DPOs) (2017):

The contact details of the DPO should include information allowing data subjects and the supervisory authorities to reach the DPO in an easy way (a postal address, a dedicated telephone number, and/or a dedicated e-mail address). When appropriate, for purposes of communications with the public, other means of communications could also be provided, for example, a dedicated hotline, or a dedicated contact form addressed to the DPO on the organisation’s website.

Article 37(7) does not require that the published contact details should include the name of the DPO. Whilst it may be a good practice to do so, it is for the controller or the processor and the DPO to decide whether this is necessary or helpful in the particular circumstances.

[…]

As a matter of good practice, the WP29 also recommends that an organisation informs its employees of the name and contact details of the DPO. For example, the name and contact details of the DPO could be published internally on organisation’s intranet, internal telephone directory, and organisational charts.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2018):

In addition to setting out the purposes of the processing for which the personal data is intended, the relevant legal basis relied upon under Article 6 must be specified. In the case of special categories of personal data, the relevant provision of Article 9 (and where relevant, the applicable Union or Member State law under which the data is processed) should be specified. Where, pursuant to Article 10, personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures based on Article 6.1 is processed, where applicable the relevant Union or Member State law under which the processing is carried out should be specified.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

The specific interest in question must be identified for the benefit of the data subject. As a matter of best practice, the controller can also provide the data subject with the information from the balancing test, which must be carried out to allow reliance on Article 6.1(f) as a lawful basis for processing, in advance of any collection of data subjects’ personal data. To avoid information fatigue, this can be included within a layered privacy statement/ notice (see paragraph 35). In any case, the WP29 position is that information to the data subject should make it clear that they can obtain information on the balancing test upon request. This is essential for effective transparency where data subjects have doubts as to whether the balancing test has been carried out fairly or they wish to file a complaint with a supervisory authority.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

The term “recipient” is defined in Article 4.9 as “a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or another body, to which the personal data are disclosed, whether a third party or not” [emphasis added]. As such, a recipient does not have to be a third party. Therefore, other data controllers, joint controllers and processors to whom data is transferred or disclosed are covered by the term “recipient” and information on such recipients should be provided in addition to information on third party recipients. The actual (named) recipients of the personal data, or the categories of recipients, must be provided. In accordance with the principle of fairness, controllers must provide information on the recipients that is most meaningful for data subjects. In practice, this will generally be the named recipients, so that data subjects know exactly who has their personal data. If controllers opt to provide the categories of recipients, the information should be as specific as possible by indicating the type of recipient (i.e. by reference to the activities it carries out), the industry, sector and sub-sector and the location of the recipients.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

The relevant GDPR article permitting the transfer and the corresponding mechanism (e.g. adequacy decision under Article 45/ binding corporate rules under Article 47/ standard data protection clauses under Article 46.2/ derogations and safeguards under Article 49 etc.) should be specified. Information on where and how the relevant document may be accessed or obtained should also be provided e.g. by providing a link to the mechanism used. In accordance with the principle of fairness, the information provided on transfers to third countries should be as meaningful as possible to data subjects; this will generally mean that the third countries be named.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

This is linked to the data minimisation requirement in Article 5.1(c) and storage limitation requirement in Article 5.1(e). The storage period (or criteria to determine it) may be dictated by factors such as statutory requirements or industry guidelines but should be phrased in a way that allows the data subject to assess, on the basis of his or her own situation, what the retention period will be for specific data/ purposes. It is not sufficient for the data controller to generically state that personal data will be kept as long as necessary for the legitimate purposes of the processing. Where relevant, the different storage periods should be stipulated for different categories of personal data and/or different processing purposes, including where appropriate, archiving periods.

EDPB, Guidelines on the use of location data and contact tracing tools in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak (2020):

Storage limitation should consider the true needs and the medical relevance (this may include epidemiology-motivated considerations like the incubation period,etc.) and personal data should be kept only for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. Afterwards,as a general rule,all personal data should be erased or anonymised.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

This information should be specific to the processing scenario and include a summary of what the right involves and how the data subject can take steps to exercise it and any limitations on the right. […] In particular, the right to object to processing must be explicitly brought to the data subject’s attention at the latest at the time of first communication with the data subject and must be presented clearly and separately from any other information.64 In relation to the right to portability, see WP29 Guidelines on the right to data portability.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

This information should include how consent may be withdrawn, taking into account that it should be as easy for a data subject to withdraw consent as to give it.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

This information should explain that, in accordance with Article 77, a data subject has the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or of an alleged infringement of the GDPR.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01 (2016):

For example in an employment context, it may be a contractual requirement to provide certain information to a current or prospective employer. Online forms should clearly identify which fields are “required”, which are not, and what will be the consequences of not filling in the required fields.

Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (wp251rev.01) (2018):

Given the core principle of transparency underpinning the GDPR, controllers must ensure they explain clearly and simply to individuals how the profiling or automated decision-making process works.
In particular, where the processing involves profiling-based decision making (irrespective of whether it is caught by Article 22 provisions), then the fact that the processing is for the purposes of both (a) profiling and (b) making a decision based on the profile generated, must be made clear to the data subject.

Recital 60 states that giving information about profiling is part of the controller’s transparency obligations under Article 5(1) (a). The data subject has a right to be informed by the controller about and, in certain circumstances, a right to object to ‘profiling’, regardless of whether solely automated individual decision-making based on profiling takes place.

EDPB, Guidelines 8/2020 on the targeting of social media users (2020).