# GDPR Article 64 — Opinion of the Board - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr/article-64-opinion-of-the-board - Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr) › Articles 61–70 - Last updated: 2026-06-05 - Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com) **GDPR**·Article `Article 64`·low·Component: **Chapter VII: Cooperation and Consistency** ## What this control requires > Ensure the supervisory authority submits draft decisions to the Board for an opinion on matters like data protection impact assessments, codes of conduct, certification criteria, standard clauses, or binding corporate rules, as per GDPR Articles 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 61, and 62. The Board issues opinions within 8-14 weeks, and the authority must consider them before finalizing decisions. This control addresses Cooperation and Consistency. > > — GDPR, Article Article 64 ### In plain English Ensure the supervisory authority submits draft decisions to the Board for an opinion on matters like data protection impact assessments, codes of conduct, certification criteria, standard clauses, or binding corporate rules, as per GDPR Articles 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 61, and 62. In practice, this means you can prove you data supervisory authority-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. ## 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 VII: Cooperation and Consistency**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Article Article 64) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement #### Secure Development **Pipeline.** Require code review, SAST (Semgrep / Snyk Code), SCA (Dependabot / Renovate), secret-scanning and IaC scanning in the merge pipeline. **Branch protection.** Protected branches enforce reviews, signed commits and passing CI before merge; document the protection rules as the control evidence. #### Code Review Testing **Pipeline.** Require at least one human reviewer plus passing CI (lint, type, unit, security scan) before merge — protected branches enforce this. #### 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. ### Operational checklist - **Data.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Cooperation.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Codes.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Certification.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** supervisory authority, conduct, standard clauses, corporate rules, board. ## Evidence to collect - **Code Repo Scan.** Source-control evidence — branch protection, required reviewers, CI status, SCA / SAST reports. Source control pipelines (GitHub, GitLab) enforce SDLC guardrails. Focus: Opinion of the Board. ## Common pitfalls - CI security checks set to warn-only; the merge button is faster than the security feedback. - Policies that no engineer has read; the version in Confluence drifts from the version that's actually being enforced. ## 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. - [**CIS Controls v8 16.9** — Train Developers in Application Security Concepts and Secure Coding](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/cis-controls-v8/16-9-train-developers-in-application-security-concepts-and-secure-coding) - [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.8.28** — Secure coding](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-8-28-secure-coding) ## Related controls in GDPR - [**Article Article 46** — Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr/article-46-transfers-subject-to-appropriate-safeguards) - [**Article Article 41** — Monitoring of approved codes of conduct](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr/article-41-monitoring-of-approved-codes-of-conduct) - [**Article Article 57** — Tasks](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr/article-57-tasks) - [**Article Article 47** — Binding corporate rules](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr/article-47-binding-corporate-rules) ## References - [European Union — GDPR](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj) - Catalogue identifier: `Article Article 64` Topics: application securitysecure developmentcode review testingdevsecopspolicy management ## Related compliance guidance - [GDPR compliance: a practical implementation guide for cloud-native SaaS teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr): Start with the full GDPR implementation guide — scope, roadmap, evidence and how the assessment runs. - [ISO/IEC 27001:2022 compliance: a practical implementation guide](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022): The security management system most EU procurement teams ask for alongside a DPA; its controls supply much of the Article 32 evidence. - [India's DPDP Act 2023: a practical compliance guide for cloud teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/india-dpdp-act-2023): If engineering or support teams sit in India, the same data flows are also subject to India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act.