6.15.1 Compliance with legal and contractual requirements
Applicable legislation and contractual requirements must be identified, and the organization should identify the potential legal sanctions arising from missed obligations for the processing of personal data, including su
4
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
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
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
none for this control
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Register of applicable legislation and contractual requirements with the sanctions identified · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Retention schedule entry covering privacy policies and procedures · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Archive of superseded policy and procedure versions with effective dates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Evidence the archive can reconstruct which policy governed a given processing activity at a given time · 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
- Superseded policies overwritten, so the organization cannot show what rule applied when the disputed processing happened
- Sanctions unidentified, so the exposure behind a compliance gap is never quantified for management
- Register maintained for security law only
- Policy versions retained without effective dates, making reconstruction guesswork
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