Brussels, 09 October – During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an Opinion on certain obligations following from the reliance on processor(s) and sub-processor(s), Guidelines on legitimate interest, a Statement on laying down additional procedural rules for GDPR enforcement and the EDPB work programme 2024-2025.
First, the EDPB adopted an Opinion on certain obligations following from the reliance on processor(s) and sub-processor(s) following an Art. 64(2) GDPR request to the Board by the Danish Data Protection Authority (DPA). Art. 64(2) GDPR provides that any DPA can ask the Board to issue an opinion on matters of general application or producing effects in more than one Member State.
The Opinion is about situations where controllers rely on one or more processors and sub-processors. In particular, it addresses eight questions on the interpretation of certain duties of controllers relying on processors and sub-processors, as well as the wording of controller-processor contracts, arising in particular from Art. 28 GDPR.
The Opinion explains that controllers should have the information on the identity (i.e. name, address, contact person) of all processors, sub-processors etc. readily available at all times so that they can best fulfil their obligations under Art. 28 GDPR. Besides, the controller’s obligation to verify whether the (sub-)processors present ‘sufficient guarantees’ should apply regardless of the risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, although the extent of such verification may vary, notably on the basis of the risks associated with the processing.
The Opinion also states that while the initial processor should ensure that it proposes sub-processors with sufficient guarantees, the ultimate decision and responsibility on engaging a specific sub-processor remains with the controller. The EDPB considers that under the GDPR the controller does not have a duty to systematically ask for the sub-processing contracts to check if data protection obligations have been passed down the processing chain. The controller should assess whether requesting a copy of such contracts or reviewing them is necessary for it to be able to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR.
In addition, where transfers of personal data outside of the European Economic Area take place between two (sub-)processors, the processor as data exporter should prepare the relevant documentation, such as relating to the ground of transfer used, the transfer impact assessment and the possible supplementary measures. However, as the controller is still subject to the duties stemming from Art. 28(1) GDPR on ‘sufficient guarantees’, besides the ones under Art. 44 to ensure that the level of protection is not undermined by transfers of personal data, it should assess this documentation and be able to show it to the competent Data Protection Authority.
Next, the Board adopted Guidelines on the processing of personal data based on legitimate interest.
Data controllers need a legal basis to process personal data lawfully. Legitimate interest is one of the six possible legal bases.
These Guidelines analyse the criteria set down in Art. 6(1) (f) GDPR that controllers must meet to lawfully process personal data on the basis of legitimate interest. It also takes into consideration the recent ECJ ruling on this matter (C-621/22, 4 October 2024).
In order to rely on legitimate interest, the controller needs to fulfil three cumulative conditions:
The pursuit of a legitimate interest by the controller or by a third party;
The necessity to process personal data for the purposes of pursuing the legitimate interest;
The interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of individuals do not take precedence over the legitimate interest(s) of the controller or of a third party (balancing exercise).
First of all, only the interests that are lawful, clearly and precisely articulated, real and present may be considered legitimate. For example, such legitimate interests could exist in a situation where the individual is a client or in the service of the controller.
Second, if there are reasonable, just as effective, but less intrusive alternatives for achieving the interests pursued, the processing may not be considered to be necessary. The necessity of a processing should also be examined with the principle of data minimisation.
Third, the controller must ensure that its legitimate interest is not overridden by the individual's interests, fundamental rights or freedoms. In this balancing exercise, the controller needs to take into account the interests of the individuals, the impact of the processing and their reasonable expectations, as well as the existence of additional safeguards which could limit the impact on the individual.
In addition, these Guidelines explain how this assessment should be carried out in practice, including in a number of specific contexts such as fraud prevention, direct marketing and information security. The document also explains the relationship between this legal basis and a number of data subject rights under the GDPR.
The Guidelines will be subject to public consultation until 20 November 2024.
Next, the Board adopted a Statement following the amendments made by the European Parliament and the Council to the European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of the GDPR.
The Statement generally welcomes the modifications introduced by the European Parliament and the Council, and recommends further addressing specific elements in order for the new regulation to achieve the objectives of streamlining cooperation between authorities and improving the enforcement of the GDPR.
The Statement makes practical recommendations that may be used in the context of the upcoming trilogues. In particular, the EDPB reiterates the need for a legal basis and harmonised procedure for amicable settlements and it makes recommendations in view of ensuring that consensus on the summary of key issues is reached in the most efficient manner. The Board also welcomes the inclusion of additional deadlines while recalling that they need to be realistic and urges the co-legislators to remove the provisions related to the relevant and reasoned objections and the ‘statement of reasons’ in the dispute resolution procedure.
While the Statement welcomes the objective of achieving increased transparency, the introduction of a joint case file, as proposed by the European Parliament, would require complex changes to the document management and communication systems used at European and national levels. The technical solutions for its implementation should be carefully assessed, and the modalities for granting access to it should be further clarified.
The EDPB welcomes the Council’s amendment allowing the lead DPA to opt-out from the so-called enhanced cooperation in simple and straightforward cases, but it highlights the need to clarify further the scope of this opt-out.
EDPB Chair Anu Talus said: “The draft regulation has the potential to greatly streamline GDPR enforcement by increasing the efficiency of case handling. More harmonisation is needed at EU level, in order to maximise the full effectiveness of the GDPR’s cooperation and consistency mechanisms.”
During its latest plenary, the Board adopted its work programme for 2024-2025. This is the first one of two work programmes which will implement the EDPB strategy for 2024-2027 adopted in April 2024. It is based on the priorities set in the EDPB strategy and it also takes into account the needs identified as most important for stakeholders.
Finally, the EDPB members agreed to grant the status of observer to the EDPB’s activities to the Kosovan Information and Privacy Agency (Kosovan DPA), in line with Art. 8 EDPB Rules of Procedure.
