Article 35 📖 GDPR. Data protection impact assessment| GDPR-Text.com

Article 35 GDPR. Data protection impact assessment

1. Where a type of processing in particular using new technologies, and taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall, prior to the processing, carry out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the protection of personal data. A single assessment may address a set of similar processing operations that present similar high risks.

ISO 27701 Related

ISO 27701

ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII processors.

Here is the relevant paragraph to articles 35(1) GDPR:

8.2.1 Customer agreement

Control

The organization should ensure, where relevant, that the contract to process PII addresses the organization’s role in providing assistance with the customer’s obligations (taking into account the nature of processing and the information available to the organization).

Implementation guidance

The contract between the organization and the customer should include the following wherever relevant, and depending on the customer’s role (PII controller or PII processor) (this list is neither definitive nor exhaustive):

[…]

Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default Version 2.0.

2.1.3.3 “nature, scope, context and purpose of processing”

28. In short, the concept of nature can be understood as the inherent[11] characteristics of the processing. The scope refers to the size and range of the processing. The context relates to the circumstances of the processing, which may influence the expectations of the data subject, while the purpose pertains to the aims of the processing.

_{[11] Examples are special categories personal data, automatic decision-making, skewed power relations, unpredictable processing, difficulties for the data subject to exercise the rights, etc.}

2. The controller shall seek the advice of the data protection officer, where designated, when carrying out a data protection impact assessment.

3. A data protection impact assessment referred to in paragraph 1 shall in particular be required in the case of:

(a) a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects relating to natural persons which is based on automated processing, including profiling, and on which decisions are based that produce legal effects concerning the natural person or similarly significantly affect the natural person;

(b) processing on a large scale of special categories of data referred to in Article 9(1), or of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10; or

Article 9 GDPR. Processing of special categories of personal data

1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

[…]

Article 10 GDPR. Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences

Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures based on Article 6(1) shall be carried out only under the control of official authority or when the processing is authorised by Union or Member State law providing for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Any comprehensive register of criminal convictions shall be kept only under the control of official authority.

Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)

2.1.3 ‘LARGE SCALE’

In any event, the WP29 recommends that the following factors, in particular, be considered when determining whether the processing is carried out on a large scale:

• the number of data subjects concerned – either as a specific number or as a proportion of the relevant population

• the volume of data and/or the range of different data items being processed

• the duration, or permanence, of the data processing activity

• the geographical extent of the processing activity.

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.

Examples that do not constitute large-scale processing include:

• processing of patient data by an individual physician

• processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences by an individual lawyer.

(c) a systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale.

Guidelines & Case Law

Documents

EDPB, Guidelines 3/2019 on Processing of Personal Data through Video Devices (2020).

4. The supervisory authority shall establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations which are subject to the requirement for a data protection impact assessment pursuant to paragraph 1. The supervisory authority shall communicate those lists to the Board referred to in Article 68.

Article 68 GDPR. European Data Protection Board

1. The European Data Protection Board (the ‘Board’) is hereby established as a body of the Union and shall have legal personality.

2. The Board shall be represented by its Chair.

3. The Board shall be composed of the head of one supervisory authority of each Member State and of the European Data Protection Supervisor, or their respective representatives.

4. Where in a Member State more than one supervisory authority is responsible for monitoring the application of the provisions pursuant to this Regulation, a joint representative shall be appointed in accordance with that Member State’s law.

5. The Commission shall have the right to participate in the activities and meetings of the Board without voting right. The Commission shall designate a representative. The Chair of the Board shall communicate to the Commission the activities of the Board.

6. In the cases referred to in Article 65, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall have voting rights only on decisions which concern principles and rules applicable to the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies which correspond in substance to those of this Regulation.

5. The supervisory authority may also establish and make public a list of the kind of processing operations for which no data protection impact assessment is required. The supervisory authority shall communicate those lists to the Board.

6. Prior to the adoption of the lists referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, the competent supervisory authority shall apply the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 63 where such lists involve processing activities which are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects or to the monitoring of their behaviour in several Member States, or may substantially affect the free movement of personal data within the Union.

Article 63 GDPR. Consistency mechanism

Article 4 GDPR. Definitions

In order to contribute to the consistent application of this Regulation throughout the Union, the supervisory authorities shall cooperate with each other and, where relevant, with the Commission, through the consistency mechanism as set out in this Section.

Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)

Offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to data subjects in the Union

The first activity triggering the application of Article 3(2) is the “offering of goods or services”, a concept which has been further addressed by EU law and case law, which should be taken into account when applying the targeting criterion. The offering of services also includes the offering of information society services, defined in point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 [23] as “any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”.

_{[23] Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services.}

Another key element to be assessed in determining whether the Article 3(2)(a) targeting criterion can be met is whether the offer of goods or services is directed at a person in the Union, or in other words, whether the conduct on the part of the controller, which determines the means and purposes of processing, demonstrates its intention to offer goods or a services to a data subject located in the Union. Recital 23 of the GDPR indeed clarifies that “in order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.”

7. The assessment shall contain at least:

(a) a systematic description of the envisaged processing operations and the purposes of the processing, including, where applicable, the legitimate interest pursued by the controller;

Guidelines & Case Law

Case law

CJEU, Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG/Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV, C-40/17 (2019).

(b) an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the processing operations in relation to the purposes;

(c) an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects referred to in paragraph 1; and

(d) the measures envisaged to address the risks, including safeguards, security measures and mechanisms to ensure the protection of personal data and to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation taking into account the rights and legitimate interests of data subjects and other persons concerned.

8. Compliance with approved codes of conduct referred to in Article 40 by the relevant controllers or processors shall be taken into due account in assessing the impact of the processing operations performed by such controllers or processors, in particular for the purposes of a data protection impact assessment.

Article 40 GDPR. Codes of conduct

9. Where appropriate, the controller shall seek the views of data subjects or their representatives on the intended processing, without prejudice to the protection of commercial or public interests or the security of processing operations.

ISO 27701

ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27001, section 4.2.

Here is the relevant paragraph to article 35(9) GDPR:

5.2.2 Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties

The organization shall include among its interested parties (see ISO/IEC 27001:2013, 4.2), those parties having interests or responsibilities associated with the processing of PII, including the PII principals.

[…]

10. Where processing pursuant to point (c) or (e) of Article 6(1) has a legal basis in Union law or in the law of the Member State to which the controller is subject, that law regulates the specific processing operation or set of operations in question, and a data protection impact assessment has already been carried out as part of a general impact assessment in the context of the adoption of that legal basis, paragraphs 1 to 7 shall not apply unless Member States deem it to be necessary to carry out such an assessment prior to processing activities.

Article 6 GDPR. Lawfulness of processing

1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:

[…]

(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;

[…]

(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;

11. Where necessary, the controller shall carry out a review to assess if processing is performed in accordance with the data protection impact assessment at least when there is a change of the risk represented by processing operations.

General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR)

The latest consolidated version of the Regulation with corrections by Corrigendum, OJ L 127, 23.5.2018, p. 2 ((EU) 2016/679). Source: EUR-lex.

ISO 27701 Recitals Guidelines & Case Law Leave a comment

ISO 27701

ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII controllers.

Here is the relevant paragraph to article 35 GDPR:

7.2.5 Privacy impact assessment

Control

The organization should assess the need for, and implement where appropriate, a privacy impact assessment whenever new processing of PII or changes to existing processing of PII is planned.

Implementation guidance

PII processing generates risks for PII principals. These risks should be assessed through a privacy impact assessment.

[…]

Recitals

(85) Нарушение безопасности персональных данных, если оно не было надлежащим образом и вовремя устранено, может повлечь физический, материальный или моральный вред физическим лицам, как, например, потеря контроля над их персональными данными или ограничение их прав, дискриминация, кража личности или ее мошенническое использование, финансовые потери, несанкционированная повторная идентификация псевдонимизированных данных, ущерб репутации, нарушение конфиденциальности персональных данных, защищенных профессиональной тайной, или любой другой значительный экономический или социальный вред, нанесенный физическому лицу. Поэтому, как только контролёру становится известно о нарушении безопасности персональных данных, он обязан уведомить о таком нарушении надзорный орган без неоправданной задержки и, по возможности, не позднее 72 часов, за исключением случаев, когда контролёр может подтвердить, в соответствии с принципом подотчетности, что нарушение безопасности персональных данных с малой вероятностью может представлять риск нарушения прав и свобод физических лиц. В случаях, когда подобное уведомление не может быть сделано в течение 72 часов, причины такой задержки должны сопровождать уведомление и информация может предоставляться поэтапно без дополнительной задержки.

(84) In order to enhance compliance with this Regulation where processing operations are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller should be responsible for the carrying-out of a data protection impact assessment to evaluate, in particular, the origin, nature, particularity and severity of that risk. The outcome of the assessment should be taken into account when determining the appropriate measures to be taken in order to demonstrate that the processing of personal data complies with this Regulation. Where a data-protection impact assessment indicates that processing operations involve a high risk which the controller cannot mitigate by appropriate measures in terms of available technology and costs of implementation, a consultation of the supervisory authority should take place prior to the processing.

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

(90) In such cases, a data protection impact assessment should be carried out by the controller prior to the processing in order to assess the particular likelihood and severity of the high risk, taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing and the sources of the risk. That impact assessment should include, in particular, the measures, safeguards and mechanisms envisaged for mitigating that risk, ensuring the protection of personal data and demonstrating compliance with this Regulation.

(91) This should in particular apply to large-scale processing operations which aim to process a considerable amount of personal data at regional, national or supranational level and which could affect a large number of data subjects and which are likely to result in a high risk, for example, on account of their sensitivity, where in accordance with the achieved state of technological knowledge a new technology is used on a large scale as well as to other processing operations which result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, in particular where those operations render it more difficult for data subjects to exercise their rights. A data protection impact assessment should also be made where personal data are processed for taking decisions regarding specific natural persons following any systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects relating to natural persons based on profiling those data or following the processing of special categories of personal data, biometric data, or data on criminal convictions and offences or related security measures. A data protection impact assessment is equally required for monitoring publicly accessible areas on a large scale, especially when using optic-electronic devices or for any other operations where the competent supervisory authority considers that the processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, in particular because they prevent data subjects from exercising a right or using a service or a contract, or because they are carried out systematically on a large scale. The processing of personal data should not be considered to be on a large scale if the processing concerns personal data from patients or clients by an individual physician, other health care professional or lawyer. In such cases, a data protection impact assessment should not be mandatory.

(92) There are circumstances under which it may be reasonable and economical for the subject of a data protection impact assessment to be broader than a single project, for example where public authorities or bodies intend to establish a common application or processing platform or where several controllers plan to introduce a common application or processing environment across an industry sector or segment or for a widely used horizontal activity.

(93) In the context of the adoption of the Member State law on which the performance of the tasks of the public authority or public body is based and which regulates the specific processing operation or set of operations in question, Member States may deem it necessary to carry out such assessment prior to the processing activities.

Guidelines & Case Law