EvidenceSheet

Art.37 Designation of the data protection officer

Designate a data protection officer where the processing is carried out by a public authority or body, except for courts acting in their judicial capacity, where the core activities consist of processing operations which

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
3
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 Article 37(1) assessment, made whether or not an officer was appointed, showing how core activities, large scale and regular and systematic monitoring were judged · SIEM / log platform
  • The designation record, with evidence the contact details were both published and communicated to the supervisory authority · Document repository
  • Where a group officer is appointed, evidence of accessibility from each establishment including language and working hours · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • The officer's qualifications and experience measured against the data protection risk the organisation's processing presents · Document repository
  • The officer's other roles and duties, with the conflict of interests analysis for each · Policy repository / GRC workspace

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.36 Prior consultation · Art.38 Position of the data protection officer