Article 65: Dispute resolution by the Board

To operationalize the article 65: dispute resolution by the board requirement, you need an internal playbook for when a cross-border GDPR case escalates to the EDPB’s binding dispute resolution and your lead supervisory authority (LSA) requests input, facts, or remediation. Your job is to preserve decision-quality evidence, coordinate responses, and execute outcomes promptly once a binding decision lands. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Key takeaways:

• Article 65 is an escalation and coordination requirement, not a day-to-day processing control. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)
• Your operational focus is readiness: roles, triggers, evidence packaging, and rapid response to supervisory authority requests.
• Treat EDPB binding decisions as board-level regulatory events: assign ownership, track actions, and retain an audit-ready record.

Article 65 sits in the GDPR’s consistency and cooperation mechanics. It describes how the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) resolves disputes between supervisory authorities by issuing a binding decision “in order to ensure the correct and consistent application” of the GDPR in individual cases. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

For a CCO or GRC lead, this requirement matters most when you have cross-border processing, multiple EU supervisory authorities engaged, and disagreement on the outcome of a case (for example, on corrective measures, scope, or findings). You typically do not “comply with Article 65” through a standalone policy; you comply by having your governance, case-management, and evidence retention mature enough to support the LSA and to implement what regulators ultimately decide.

Operationally, your goal is simple: avoid being the reason the regulator process stalls or the record is incomplete. A well-run Article 65 readiness program looks like a disciplined regulatory response function: clear ownership, controlled submissions, a single source of truth for facts, and an execution path for binding outcomes.

Regulatory text

Excerpt (provided): “In order to ensure the correct and consistent application of this Regulation in individual cases, the Board shall adopt a binding decision in the following cases:” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

What the operator must do with this text

Article 65 is addressed to the EDPB and supervisory authorities, but it creates a practical expectation for organizations: be prepared to support a cross-authority dispute process and to act on the resulting binding decision. Your operational obligations are indirect but real: if you are under regulatory scrutiny in a cross-border matter, your responsiveness, evidence quality, and remediation discipline will shape outcomes and timelines. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Translate the excerpt into an operator requirement like this:

• Trigger: A cross-border GDPR case where supervisory authorities disagree and the LSA escalates into the EDPB dispute resolution track. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)
• Expected organizational behavior: Provide complete, consistent, and verifiable facts through the LSA channel; avoid conflicting narratives across jurisdictions; implement required corrective actions once the decision is binding.

Plain-English interpretation

If your GDPR matter becomes a cross-border dispute between regulators, the EDPB can issue a binding decision to settle it. You need a repeatable internal process to:

1. coordinate communications,
2. package evidence and “facts of record,” and
3. execute required remediation without losing control of timelines, ownership, or documentation. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Who this applies to (entity and operational context)

Applies to organizations acting as controllers or processors for in-scope personal data, especially where processing is cross-border and multiple supervisory authorities may be involved. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Operational contexts where Article 65 readiness becomes relevant:

• You have an EU footprint with multiple establishments, or you serve data subjects in multiple Member States.
• You face a complaint, investigation, or enforcement process that engages an LSA plus concerned supervisory authorities.
• Your organization runs shared platforms (adtech, SaaS, marketplaces, centralized HRIS/CRM) where one processing design impacts multiple jurisdictions.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Define scope and roles for dispute-resolution readiness

Create a role-and-scope register for Article 65 readiness:

• Controller vs. processor position per major processing activity.
• Systems and data categories that commonly show up in regulatory matters (identity, behavioral, HR, customer support).
• Legal entity map and EU establishments relevant to LSA determination.
• Named accountable owner (usually Privacy Counsel + DPO + Regulatory Response Lead). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Practical tip: If your controller/processor position shifts across products, disputes get harder because the “facts” are not stable. Lock positions per processing activity and keep them current.

Step 2: Create an “EDPB dispute escalation” operating procedure

Write a procedure that answers four questions clearly:

• Triggers: What events cause you to invoke the playbook (formal notice from an authority, notification that authorities disagree, request routed via LSA)?
• Decision rights: Who approves regulator submissions and remediation commitments?
• Channels: How you ensure communications flow through the LSA pathway and do not fragment.
• Artifact control: Where evidence lives, who can edit it, and how you maintain version history. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Keep the procedure short enough to execute under pressure. Make it a runbook, not a policy essay.

Step 3: Stand up a regulatory response “single source of truth”

Build a case workspace (GRC tool, secure ticketing, or a dedicated matter repository) with:

• A timeline of regulator events and requests.
• A “facts matrix” (claim, supporting evidence, owner, confidence level).
• A document register (what you submitted, to whom, when, and approved by whom).
• An actions register (remediation items, owners, status, completion evidence). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

If you use Daydream, treat the requirement page as the control hub: map ownership, attach the evidence packet, and track exceptions and remediation to closure.

Step 4: Package evidence the way regulators can use it

Most teams lose time on evidence formatting, not the underlying facts. Create standard evidence packets:

• System diagrams and data flow maps (current-state, not aspirational).
• Processing purposes and legal basis documentation for relevant operations.
• Technical and organizational measures summaries (security controls, access controls, logging).
• Incident/complaint handling record (if relevant to the matter).
• Data subject request logs and outcomes (if relevant). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Aim for “audit-grade” artifacts: dated, owned, and internally approved.

Step 5: Control submissions and avoid inconsistent statements

Common failure mode: different teams respond to different authorities with slightly different narratives.

Operational controls:

• Require centralized drafting and legal review for any external response connected to the matter.
• Maintain a controlled Q&A log with approved language for recurring questions.
• Train customer support and sales to route regulator-adjacent inquiries to the response team. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Step 6: Execute binding outcomes like a remediation program

If a binding decision results in required actions, treat it like a high-priority remediation:

• Break requirements into implementable work items (technical change, policy update, contract update, product UX change).
• Assign owners in engineering, product, security, and operations.
• Collect closure evidence per item (screenshots, config exports, commit references, updated contracts, training attestations).
• Record exceptions and compensating controls when immediate change is not feasible, with documented sign-off. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep an “Article 65 readiness and response” evidence packet that can be produced on request:

Governance

• Role-and-scope register (controller/processor positions, systems, data categories).
• Named owners and approval matrix for submissions and commitments. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Case management

• Case chronology (events, regulator touchpoints, deadlines as communicated).
• Requests log and response log (including final submitted copies). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Submissions

• Approved narratives and factual statements with citations to internal evidence.
• Document version history and sign-offs. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Remediation

• Remediation plan, tracked actions, and completion evidence.
• Post-implementation validation results (testing notes, control checks). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Auditors and regulators testing maturity often probe:

• “Who owns cross-border supervisory authority engagement, and who can commit the business?”
• “Show me how you prevent inconsistent responses across jurisdictions.”
• “Where is the system-of-record for facts, evidence, and final submissions?”
• “How do you track regulatory-driven remediation to closure and prove it?” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Hangups you should expect:

• Unclear controller/processor role statements.
• Evidence scattered across email, chat, and personal drives.
• No consistent approval chain for regulator submissions.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Treating Article 65 as a policy checkbox
   Fix: build a runbook with triggers, owners, and a case workspace. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

2. No role clarity across products
   Fix: maintain a role-and-scope register tied to processing activities and systems. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

3. Evidence that is “true” but not defensible (undated diagrams, no owners, unclear source)
   Fix: require artifact metadata (owner, date, version, system source) and store in a controlled repository.

4. Parallel communications with multiple authorities
   Fix: a single communications lead, a single approved Q&A, and strict routing. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Enforcement context and risk implications

No specific public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement, so this page does not list case examples.

Risk you should manage anyway:

• Cross-border cases raise coordination complexity. Poor internal coordination can lead to inconsistent facts, delayed responses, and harder remediation execution. Article 65 formalizes that regulators can align on a binding outcome when they disagree. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Source-backed timing for implementation is not provided, so use phased execution and set your own internal deadlines.

First phase (Immediate): establish ownership and triggers

• Assign an Article 65 readiness owner and backups (privacy, legal, security, product).
• Draft the escalation triggers and decision-rights matrix.
• Stand up the case workspace template (timeline, facts matrix, requests log, submissions register). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Second phase (Near-term): build evidence discipline

• Populate the role-and-scope register for highest-risk processing areas.
• Create standard evidence packet templates (data flow, system diagrams, TOMs summary, DSAR logs as relevant).
• Run a tabletop exercise: simulate an LSA request with conflicting stakeholder inputs; test approval and version control. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Third phase (Ongoing): operationalize and test

• Integrate the playbook into incident response and complaint handling workflows so escalations do not start from scratch.
• Review and refresh core artifacts when systems or processing purposes change.
• Track all regulator-facing commitments to closure with closure evidence stored in the workspace. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 65 require my company to file something directly with the EDPB?

Article 65 describes a binding dispute resolution process led by the EDPB between supervisory authorities. In practice, your submissions typically flow through your lead supervisory authority, so you should be ready to support the LSA with complete facts and evidence. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

What is the main control I should implement for the article 65: dispute resolution by the board requirement?

Implement an escalation runbook plus a case workspace that controls evidence, approvals, and external submissions. Pair it with a role-and-scope register so your controller/processor positions and system scope are stable under scrutiny. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

How do we prove compliance if Article 65 is mostly about regulators?

Prove readiness and execution: show governance (owners and approvals), controlled records of requests and responses, and remediation tracking with closure evidence. That is what demonstrates you can operate effectively if a matter escalates. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

We are a processor. Does Article 65 still matter?

Yes. Processors can be pulled into cross-border matters through controller investigations, complaints, and evidence requests. Your job is to support the controller with accurate facts, and to preserve the records that substantiate your processing and safeguards. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

What should be in the “facts matrix” you mentioned?

Include each key claim (what happened, what data, what systems, what purpose), the source artifact, the owner, and the current approved wording for regulator submissions. Keep it under change control so the narrative stays consistent. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)

How does Daydream fit without creating a parallel legal matter repository?

Use Daydream as the compliance control hub: store the operating procedure, map owners, attach evidence packets, and track remediation actions and exceptions. Keep privileged legal analysis in your legal repository, and link to it where appropriate without duplicating sensitive content. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 65)