Last September, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB“) issued its Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR. The guidelines were subject to public consultation until 19 October.
As it can be inferred from the title, the document gives criteria for the correct interpretation of some key concepts used in the GDPR. However, that is not all. The guidelines also deal with data processing agreements and censor a practice which has been common in the drafting of these contracts: merely restating the processor’s obligations listed in Art. 28(3) of the GDPR.
The guidelines establish that, while the elements laid down by Article 28 of the Regulation constitute the core content of any data processing agreement, the contract should clarify, in considerable detail, how such core elements have to be implemented.
To do that, the EDPB gives some hints and recommendations that we are summarizing in the table below. The column in the left contains the processor’s obligation, as established in Art. 28.3 of the GDPR. The column in the right makes reference to the additional aspects that, according to the EDPB, should be included in the contract in relation to those obligations.
Processor’s obligation under Art. 28(3) GDPR |
Aspects to be added |
“processes the personal data only on documented instructions from the controller, including with regard to transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organization…” (Art. 28(3)(a)) |
|
“ensures that persons authorized to process the personal data have committed themselves to confidentiality or are under an appropriate statutory obligation of confidentiality” (Art. 28(3)(b)) |
The guidelines do not mention any specific addition to this obligation. |
“takes all measures required pursuant to Article 32” [security measures] (Art. 28(3)(c)) |
|
“respects the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 for engaging another processor” [only with prior written authorization – general or specific – of the controller, and imposing on the other processor the same data protection obligations as those vis-à -vis the controller] (Art. 28(3)(d)) |
|
“…assists the controller (…) for the fulfilment of the (…) obligation to respond to requests for exercising the data subject’s rights…” (Art. 28(3)(e)) |
|
“assists the controller in ensuring compliance with the obligations pursuant to Articles 32 to 36…” [security measures, notification of data breach and data protection impact assessments] (Art. 28(3)(f)) |
|
“at the choice of the controller, deletes or returns all the personal data to the controller after the end of the provision of services relating to processing…” (Art. 28(3)(g)) |
|
“makes available to the controller all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the obligations laid down in this Article and allow for and contribute to audits, including inspections, conducted by the controller or another auditor mandated by the controller” (Art. 28(3)(h) GDPR) |
|
“…the processor shall immediately inform the controller if, in its opinion, an instruction infringes this Regulation or other Union or Member State data protection provisions” (Art. 28(3), subparagraph 2) |
Consequences of the processor’s notification of an unlawful instruction, given by the controller (e.g. termination of the contract if the controller persists with the unlawful instruction). |
The level of detail and/or complexity of the measures and procedures to be included in the agreements should not always be the same. As the guidelines state, these measures and procedures should be tailored to each specific situation. For instance, there is no need to impose particularly stringent protections and procedures on a processor entrusted with a processing activity from which only minor risks arise. In any event, from now on those wishing to observe the EDPB’s recommendations should spend some time rethinking and renegotiating their processing agreements.