GDPR·Article Article 35·high·Component: Chapter IV: Controller and Processor

What this control requires

Controllers must conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) for high-risk processing, especially involving new technologies, profiling, special data categories, or large-scale monitoring, detailing operations, purposes, risks, and mitigation measures, consulting the DPO and, where appropriate, data subjects. This control addresses Data Protection Impact Assessment.
— GDPR, Article Article 35

In plain English

Controllers must conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) for high-risk processing, especially involving new technologies, profiling, special data categories, or large-scale monitoring, detailing operations, purposes, risks, and mitigation measures, consulting the DPO and, where appropriate, data subjects. In practice, this means you can prove you data controller-level controls on a defined cadence.

Why it matters

GDPR administrative fines reach the greater of €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) coordinates supervisory-authority enforcement across the EU/EEA, and DPAs publish enforcement decisions citing specific Articles.

This control is rated high. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation.

What an auditor looks for

A DPA or privacy auditor expects: a Records of Processing Activities (RoPA) entry, a documented lawful basis, evidence the Article's data-subject right is operationalised end-to-end, a named DPO contact (where required), and Article 30 records that match what the front-end actually does.

Within Chapter IV: Controller and Processor, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Article Article 35) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

How to implement

Policy Management

Docs. Keep each policy in version-controlled Markdown alongside the code that implements it; ship a signed PDF snapshot at each annual review and link the SHA into the SoA.

Vulnerability Management

Scanners. Pair an unauthenticated scanner (Nessus / Qualys / Tenable.io) for external surface with an authenticated agent for OS/library CVEs on every host.

SLA. Document remediation SLAs by CVSS / EPSS: critical 7 days, high 30 days, medium 90 days; report monthly trend to leadership.

Containers. Scan images in CI (Trivy / Grype / Snyk Container) AND at runtime; block deploys on critical findings without exception.

Operational checklist

  • Data. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
  • Processor. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
  • Scope: controller, controllers, protection impact assessment, conduct, data subjects.

Evidence to collect

  • Policy Document. A signed and version-controlled policy / standard / procedure document.

Signed policy or standard documents the safeguard. Focus: Data protection impact assessment.

Common pitfalls

  • Policies that no engineer has read; the version in Confluence drifts from the version that's actually being enforced.
  • Scans that hit only the perimeter; missing authenticated scans of OS, runtime libs and base images so most CVEs are invisible.

How it maps to other frameworks

Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit.

Related controls in GDPR

References

Topics: governance risklogging monitoringcontinuous monitoringpolicy managementvulnerability management