Take-Aways (AI)
  • Infor­ma­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons may be ful­fil­led in a “laye­red” approach; brief infor­ma­ti­on by letter/telephone with a link or QR code to com­ple­te online infor­ma­ti­on is sufficient.
  • The first lay­er of infor­ma­ti­on must sta­te the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing, the iden­ti­ty of the con­trol­ler, the rights of the data sub­ject and par­ti­cu­lar­ly effec­ti­ve or sur­pri­sing pro­ce­s­sing operations.
  • For phy­si­cal cont­acts, prin­ted fly­ers with brief infor­ma­ti­on are per­mit­ted if com­ple­te infor­ma­ti­on is available on site even wit­hout Inter­net access.
  • Trans­mis­si­on must be veri­fi­a­bly docu­men­ted; ent­ry in elec­tro­nic systems recom­men­ded, open­ness exists with regard to suf­fi­ci­ent pro­of of pro­ce­s­ses and training.

The Bran­den­burg Sta­te Com­mis­sio­ner for Data Pro­tec­tion has issued a Hand­out on the duty to inform of the con­trol­ler accor­ding to Art. 13 and 14 DSGVO published. It is worth rea­ding the enti­re hand­out, but the fol­lo­wing notes in par­ti­cu­lar are relevant:

  • The infor­ma­ti­on should gene­ral­ly be trans­mit­ted using the same medi­um as the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on with the data sub­ject (avo­id­ance of a media break). In the case of off­line com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, howe­ver, this would mean that infor­ma­ti­on sheets con­si­sting of seve­ral pages would have to be sent with each com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on. It is the­r­e­fo­re per­mis­si­ble to send only the most important infor­ma­ti­on by let­ter (or on the pho­ne, for exam­p­le when cal­ling cus­to­mer ser­vice) and, by pro­vi­ding a link or using a QR code refer to a web­sitewhe­re the fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on can be found. In this respect – in the sen­se of a “laye­red” approach – a media dis­con­ti­nui­ty may be accept­ed.. The first “infor­ma­ti­on lay­er” should con­tain the fol­lo­wing items: 
    • Pro­ce­s­sing purposes
    • Iden­ti­ty of the respon­si­ble person
    • Descrip­ti­on of the rights of the data subject
    • Pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons that would have the grea­test impact on the data sub­ject and/or would be surprising.
  • Accor­din­gly, it is per­mis­si­ble to use phy­si­cal cont­acts with the per­son con­cer­ned (e.g. during a con­sul­ta­ti­on), the most important infor­ma­ti­on (see abo­ve) on a (ide­al­ly sepa­ra­te) prin­ted fly­er which in turn refers to a web­site with fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on, pro­vi­ded that it is pos­si­ble for the data sub­ject to obtain the com­ple­te infor­ma­ti­on on site even wit­hout Inter­net access (for exam­p­le, by pro­vi­ding a detail­ed infor­ma­ti­on sheet).
  • For tele­pho­ne Appoint­ments the infor­ma­ti­on does not yet have to be pro­vi­ded; it is suf­fi­ci­ent if the infor­ma­ti­on is pro­vi­ded only on the date itself.
  • At E‑mail traf­fic the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on can be ful­fil­led by the e‑mail con­tai­ning a link to the web­site on which the com­ple­te infor­ma­ti­on is provided.
  • To ful­fill the Docu­men­ta­ti­on requi­re­ment the trans­mis­si­on of the infor­ma­ti­on must be veri­fia­ble, e.g. by means of an ent­ry in an elec­tro­nic recor­ding system. It remains open in the hand­out whe­ther it is suf­fi­ci­ent for pro­of that cor­re­spon­ding pro­ce­s­ses are instal­led and trained.

A good over­view of publi­ca­ti­ons by the Ger­man data pro­tec­tion super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties can be found at the Web­site of the Data Pro­tec­tion Foun­da­ti­on.