EvidenceSheet

Art.36 Prior consultation

Consult the supervisory authority prior to processing where a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 indicates that the processing would result in a high risk in the absence of measures taken by the controlle

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • The decision record for each impact assessment that concluded on residual high risk, showing whether consultation was triggered and on what reasoning · Document repository
  • Evidence that the processing did not begin before the consultation concluded · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The consultation submission carrying all six information items Article 36(3) requires · Document repository
  • The authority's written advice and the changes made to the processing in response, tracked to closure · Document repository
  • Where national law requires prior authorisation for public interest processing, the authorisation obtained · Document repository

First move

This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.

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.35 Data protection impact assessment · Art.37 Designation of the data protection officer