Joint Controller Agreement Iapp

The subcontractor and anyone acting under the control of the person in charge of the processing or the subcontractor and who has access to the personal data may only process this data on the instruction of the person in charge of the processing, unless this is required by EU or Member State legislation. Already, agreements that embody these conditions are flying between controllers and processors, some of which were concluded at the beginning of the relationship, but many have followed as complements to previous agreements. These data protection agreements or Addenda contain some commonalities, but also reflect the different bargaining power of the parties involved. For example, Salesforce created a pre-signed addendum on data protection for its customers and published it on its website so they could download, sign and save their registration systems. These agreements are non-negotiable for most Salesforce`s corporate customers. If the ECJ continues to interpret the concept of a processing manager, including within the framework of the RGPD, companies must be aware that they can already be considered common managers of processing in simple constellations of cooperation, where cooperation involves the processing of personal data. Therefore, when the facts take joint control, the companies concerned should not ignore, when establishing cooperation, which may indicate that the parties are left freer to define the form, structure and legal nature, as long as the responsibilities are clearly and transparent. It may also seem that, in most cases, this would be interpreted as some kind of agreement under the legislation. However, EU lawmakers, who are deliberately silent on this subject, suggest that it is the essence of such an agreement rather than a specific formality that is important. This issue could become much more relevant under the RGPD, which, through Article 26, imposes specific obligations on common airline trajectory controllers, but not on processing managers. If you play both controller and subcontractor, you must ensure that your systems and procedures distinguish between the personal data you process as a controller and what you treat as a subcontractor on behalf of another controller.

If some of the data is the same, your systems should be able to distinguish between these two capabilities and allow you to use different processes and ratios on each. If you can`t do that, you`ll probably be considered a common controller and not a processor for the data you process on behalf of your client. The RGPD requires an agreement, not a contract. This runs counter to the relationship between controller and processor, in which the RGPD clearly requires a contract or other legal act within the meaning of EU or Member State legislation linking the subcontractor to the processor. Subcontractors have fewer obligations, but they must ensure that personal data is handled only in accordance with the flight company`s instructions. Despite this freedom to make technical choices, the IT company is still not responsible for the bank`s data — it is a subcontractor. This is because the bank retains exclusive control over the object for which the data is processed, except only on how the processing takes place. If you request the resource centre, please contact the resource centre, please resourcecenter@iapp.org. These lists are not exhaustive, but they illustrate the differences between the roles of the controller and the processor. In certain circumstances and to the extent that this is provided for in the contract, a subcontractor may have the freedom to use his technical knowledge to decide how certain activities should be performed on behalf of the person in charge of the processing. However, it cannot make any of the cross-cutting decisions. B What types of personal data are collected or what the personal data is used for.