What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on Art.34 Communication of a personal data breach to the data subject?

The high risk assessment per breach, kept distinct from the Article 33 assessment, which uses a lower threshold; The communication as sent, assessed for clear and plain language and for the three content elements required; Where the encryption exemption is relied on, evidence the measure covered the specific affected data and that the keys were not also compromised; Where disproportionate effort is claimed, the public communication actually made and evidence of the reach it achieved; Timing records showing the interval between awareness of high risk and communication to individuals.

What is the most common gap auditors find on Art.34?

Communication deferred until the investigation completes, when the Article requires it without undue delay once high risk is identified

GDPR · Chapter IV - Controller and Processor

`Art.34` Communication of a personal data breach to the data subject

Where a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, communicate the breach to the affected data subjects without undue delay, describing in clear and plain language the nature of the breach and giving at least the contact point, the likely consequences and the measures taken or proposed including mitigation. Communication is not required where the controller had implemented appropriate technical and organisational protection measures and applied them to the affected data, in particular measures such as encryption rendering the data unintelligible to anyone unauthorised, where the controller has since taken measures making the high risk no longer likely to materialise, or where individual communication would involve disproportionate effort, in which case a public communication or similar equally effective measure must be made instead. The supervisory authority may require communication or decide that one of the exemptions applies.

Source: GDPR, Art.34. 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.

artefacts

held by a system

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

The high risk assessment per breach, kept distinct from the Article 33 assessment, which uses a lower threshold · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Where the encryption exemption is relied on, evidence the measure covered the specific affected data and that the keys were not also compromised · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Where disproportionate effort is claimed, the public communication actually made and evidence of the reach it achieved · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Timing records showing the interval between awareness of high risk and communication to individuals · HR system / LMS

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

The communication as sent, assessed for clear and plain language and for the three content elements required · 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

Communication deferred until the investigation completes, when the Article requires it without undue delay once high risk is identified
The encryption exemption claimed generally for an encrypted estate without showing it covered the data actually lost
Notices written in legal or technical language, failing the clear and plain language requirement even where the timing was met
Individuals told what happened but not the likely consequences or what to do, which is the part that lets them protect themselves

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.33 Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority · Art.35 Data protection impact assessment