EvidenceSheet

Art.15 Right of access by the data subject

On request, confirm whether personal data concerning the data subject is being processed and, where it is, provide access to that data together with the purposes, the categories of personal data, the recipients or categories of recipient including any in third countries or international organisations, the envisaged storage period or the criteria setting it, the existence of the rights to rectification, erasure, restriction and objection, the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, any available information on the source where the data was not collected from the data subject, and the existence of automated decision-making including profiling with meaningful information about the logic involved and its significance and envisaged consequences. Where data has been transferred to a third country, inform the data subject of the Article 46 safeguards relating to the transfer. Provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing, in a commonly used electronic form where the request was made electronically, free for the first copy and at a reasonable fee based on administrative costs for further copies. The right to obtain a copy must not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others.

Source: GDPR, Art.15. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open GDPR in the compliance library.

Many articles apply only where their condition is met (a data protection officer under Article 37, an impact assessment under Article 35, a representative under Article 27); the condition is in each statement.

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
at each review
hard
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Timeliness records for the last twelve months of requests measured against the one month limit · Data governance / DLP tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The search methodology showing every system, archive and unstructured store searched, and how completeness was assured · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • A worked response covering all the supplementary information items, not only the copy of the data · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • The redaction position and the applied redaction log where third party data was withheld, with a reason recorded per redaction · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • The source information provided where the data was not collected from the data subject · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

Art.14 Information where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject · Art.16 Right to rectification