Print

Opinions Prior Check and Prior Consultations

Some of the procedures that EU institutions put in place pose risks to the data protection rights and freedoms of individuals.

Under the old legal framework (Regulation (EC) 45/2001), EU institutions were obliged to notify us before putting in place risky data processing operations.

In general, our prior checking Opinions were public.

Regulation 2018/1725 builds on the old Regulation and mirrors the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) that applies to most organisations processing personal data in the Member States. Compared to the previous rules, Regulation 2018/1725 aligns documentation obligations more closely to the risks caused by processing personal data. This means for example that the documentation requirements for a EUI’s newsletter subscription will be lower than for a system using ‘intelligent CCTV’ covering publicly accessible space or a database profiling travellers for screening purposes.

Depending on the process at hand, EU institutions processing personal data ('controllers') may not have to go through all the steps below (these steps are described in the Accountability on the ground toolkit): 
• Generate basic documentation (called ‘records’) for all processes; 
• Check if the process is likely to result in high risks to the people whose data are processed and consult the DPO if it appears to do so; 
• If the EU institution needs to do a data protection impact assessment (DPIA), they analyse those risks in more detail and develop specific safeguards/controls to manage them; 
• If the results of the DPIA still indicate high residual data protection risks, the EU institution has to file a prior consultation with the EDPS (see Articles 40 and 90 of Regulation 2018/1725 respectively for administrative and operational personal data).

Article 39 of Regulation 2016/794 on Europol provides for an ad hoc prior consultation mechanism for new type of processing of operational data, namely data processed by Europol to support the Member States in preventing and combating serious crime and terrorism. Similarly, Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1939 on the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) provides a specific prior consultation mechanism for the processing of operational data, namely data processed in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions undertaken by the EPPO. Regulation 2018/1725, including the standard prior consultation mechanism, applies to Europol's and EPPO's processing of administrative data, which includes data on staff and visitors, for example.

Where an EU institution is unsure whether to notify us a data processing operation for prior consultation, their DPO can consult us for advice to confirm.

As for the old prior checking Opinions, in general the prior consultation Opinions are public, but we may delete sensitive elements where necessary, related to security for example. Some opinions, which are by nature sensitive, in particular in the police and justice area, may not be published. For the sake of transparency, these Opinions are summarised in our Annual Report.

Filters

2
Oct
2008

Security investigations - Commission

Opinion of 2 October 2008 on a notification for prior checking on security investigations (Case 2007-736)

The ADMIN/DS/RA section of the Commission is empowered to take measures in response to criminal acts concerning the buildings occupied by the Commission, the people who work in or for various reasons have access to those buildings, and any other acts which may be harmful to the institution. This includes collecting and keeping evidence and taking various investigative steps to gather such evidence, technical reporting, and collecting statements from victims, complainants, witnesses and where appropriate the perpetrators of acts.

The EDPS has examined the processing of personal data in the procedure for security investigations, and has concluded that it does not appear to breach the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 so long as certain recommendations are followed, in particular that the department responsible should assess the proportionality of its processing activities on a case‑by‑case basis; that it should provide adequate safeguards during its activities; that it should ensure that transfers of data are legal and necessary; that it should improve the procedures relating to the rights of access to and rectification of data, and should provide the requisite information to the data subjects concerned by the investigations.

Available languages: English, French
1
Oct
2008

Pilot project on individual productivity monitoring - Council

Avis du 1er octobre 2008 sur la notification de contrôle préalable au sujet d'un projet pilote sur le suivi de la productivité individuelle: traitement ultérieur des données à caractère personnel dans l'application Workflow (Dossier 2008-436)

In view of providing Heads of Language Units and individual members of staff with individual performance indicators, the Council intends to set up a pilot project on Individual Productivity Monitoring.
 
The proposed tool should enable individual members of staff to monitor their own production and the head of the data subject's unit to monitor the production of any given member of their unit and to monitor the production of all members of their unit in one simple operation.
 
On the basis of actual output as compared to the actual working time spent on translation and revision (core activities), an objective picture of individual performance can be established on the basis of:  
  1. Comparable statistical data regarding the core activity of linguists, i.e. translation and revision, so that the average translation and revision output of each individual linguist can be compared with the unit average
  2.  A break-down of the actual use of working hours on the one hand by individual linguists and on the other hand at the unit level.  
The productivity reports will be generated monthly, quarterly, half-yearly and yearly. The data produced in this way will be used by the head of the data subject's unit and the individual members of staff as one element in the assessment of the production of each member of staff.
 
A full implementation of the final processing is envisaged around September 2009 after the successful completion of the pilot project.
 
The EDPS concluded that there was no reason to believe that there is a breach of the provisions of Regulation 45/2001 provided certain considerations are fully taken into account. In particular, should the pilot project become a full fledged project at the term of the pilot project, a legal decision/instrument providing a specific legal basis for the processing of personal data must be adopted; the information note on the processing of personal data should be completed to include information on the categories of data collected and further processed; the controller should inform the EDPS as to the measures used to make the data anonymous at the end of the two year retention period; and the possibility of a specific revision procedure by data subjects who which to contest the accuracy of the reports prior to the evaluation exercise should be examined.
Available languages: English, French
30
Sep
2008

Réseau de personnes de confiance (harcèlement) - Commission

Avis du 30 septembre 2008 sur la notification d'un contrôle préalable à propos du dossier "mise en oeuvre par le service gestionnaire et le réseau des personnes de confiance de la procédure informelle de lutte contre le harcèlement moral et le harcèlement sexuel à la Commission européenne (procédure contre le harcèlement) (Dossier 2008-062)

Available languages: French
29
Sep
2008

Recruitment of trainees - EMSA

Opinion of 29 September 2008 on a notification for prior checking regarding "recruitment of trainees within the traineeship scheme in EMSA" (Case 2008-384)

The European Maritime Safety Agency offers a traineeship period from three to five months to interested individuals. In the process of selecting trainees, EMSA processes a variety of personal data of applicants. Anybody can become data subject who applies for a traineeship at EMSA.

EMSA is a relatively young agency and although in many instances it provides good standard for protecting applicants' data (e.g. general information given to candidates) not all data protection aspects are yet well defined. This is the case regarding the storage period and the handling of data on disability for obtaining certain supplementary grant. The EDPS made specific suggestions in these areas.

Available languages: English, French
29
Sep
2008

Double child allowance - Council

Opinion of 29 September 2008 on the notification for prior checking on double dependent child allowance for a handicapped child (Case 2008-405)

Pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, the Council has laid down a procedure for obtaining the opinion of the medical officer on the award of double dependent child allowance on the basis of probative medical documents. Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations states that the dependent child allowance may be doubled, by special reasoned decision of the appointing authority based on probative medical documents establishing that the child concerned is suffering from a mental or physical handicap which involves the official in heavy expenditure.

The proposed processing operation does not appear to involve any infringement of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, provided that the Council sets an appropriate and proportionate period for the retention of data in ARPEGE, provides appropriate safeguards for long-term data storage, informs recipients that the data may not be used for other purposes, draws up an information note on the procedure for implementing the medical officer's conclusions on the award of double child allowance for a handicapped dependent child or supplements the note provided by the medical officer when the handicap is assessed.

Available languages: English, French