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.
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/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27001, section 4.2.
Here is the relevant paragraph to article 36 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.
NOTE 1 Other interested parties can include customers (see 4.4 ISO 27701), supervisory authorities, other PII controllers, PII processors and their subcontractors.
NOTE 2 Requirements relevant to the processing of PII can be determined by legal and regulatory requirements, by contractual obligations and by self-imposed organizational objectives. The privacy principles set out in ISO/IEC 29100 provide guidance concerning the processing of PII.
NOTE 3 As an element to demonstrate compliance to the organization’s obligations, some interested parties can expect that the organization be in conformity with specific standards, such as the Management System specified in this document, and/or any relevant set of specifications. These parties can call for independently audited compliance to these standards.
ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII controllers.
Here is the relevant paragraph to article 36 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. Some jurisdictions define cases for which a privacy impact assessment is mandated. Criteria can include automated decision making which produces legal effects on PII principals, large scale processing of special categories of PII (e.g. health-related information, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data or biometric data), or systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale.
The organization should determine the elements that are necessary for the completion of a privacy impact assessment. These can include a list of the types of PII processed, where the PII is stored and where it can be transferred. Data flow diagrams and data maps can also be helpful in this context (see 7.2.8 for details of records of the processing of PII that can inform a privacy impact or other risk assessment).
Other information
Guidance on privacy impact assessments related to the processing of PII can be found in ISO/IEC 29134.
(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.
ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added a requirement additional to ISO/IEC 27001, section 4.2.
Here is the relevant paragraph to article 36 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.
NOTE 1 Other interested parties can include customers (see 4.4 ISO 27701), supervisory authorities, other PII controllers, PII processors and their subcontractors.
NOTE 2 Requirements relevant to the processing of PII can be determined by legal and regulatory requirements, by contractual obligations and by self-imposed organizational objectives. The privacy principles set out in ISO/IEC 29100 provide guidance concerning the processing of PII.
NOTE 3 As an element to demonstrate compliance to the organization’s obligations, some interested parties can expect that the organization be in conformity with specific standards, such as the Management System specified in this document, and/or any relevant set of specifications. These parties can call for independently audited compliance to these standards.
ISO/IEC 27701, adopted in 2019, added additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII controllers.
Here is the relevant paragraph to article 36 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. Some jurisdictions define cases for which a privacy impact assessment is mandated. Criteria can include automated decision making which produces legal effects on PII principals, large scale processing of special categories of PII (e.g. health-related information, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data or biometric data), or systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale.
The organization should determine the elements that are necessary for the completion of a privacy impact assessment. These can include a list of the types of PII processed, where the PII is stored and where it can be transferred. Data flow diagrams and data maps can also be helpful in this context (see 7.2.8 for details of records of the processing of PII that can inform a privacy impact or other risk assessment).
Other information
Guidance on privacy impact assessments related to the processing of PII can be found in ISO/IEC 29134.