Article 70: Tasks of the Board

Most GDPR requirements tell controllers and processors what to do. Article 70 is different: it defines what the EDPB “shall” do to drive consistent GDPR application across the EU. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70) That distinction matters operationally because examiners, customers, and internal audit often expect your program to align with EDPB interpretations even though Article 70 itself is not a direct “thou shalt” on your organization.

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the practical goal is defensibility: you need a repeatable way to identify relevant EDPB outputs, decide whether and how they apply to your processing, and implement changes in a controlled manner. If you cannot show that lifecycle, you end up with fragmented interpretations between business units, inconsistent contract positions with third parties, and gaps between policy and operational reality.

This page gives you requirement-level implementation guidance for the article 70: tasks of the board requirement: who it applies to in practice, what to build, how to run it, what evidence to retain, and how auditors typically probe it. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Target requirement: article 70: tasks of the board requirement

Operational interpretation: Even though Article 70 assigns tasks to the EDPB, you are expected to run a “regulatory interpretation management” process that keeps your GDPR program aligned with EDPB positions that affect your processing activities. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Why this shows up in audits

Audits rarely test whether you can recite Article 70. They test whether your GDPR decisions are consistent, current, and supportable across:

• jurisdictions (multiple EU establishments),
• products (different data uses),
• third parties (processors, sub-processors, joint initiatives),
• and change events (new features, new analytics, new transfers).

Article 70 exists because the EU wants consistent application. Your program should show you support that goal through disciplined interpretation and implementation. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Regulatory text

Excerpt (provided):
“1. The Board shall ensure the consistent application of this Regulation. To that end, the Board shall, on its own initiative or, where relevant, at the request of the Commission, in particular:” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

What the operator must do with this text (practical reading):

• Treat consistency as an operational requirement. If your EU teams interpret GDPR differently for the same processing pattern, you will struggle to defend decisions that depend on “what GDPR means.” Article 70 is the legal anchor for harmonization through the EDPB. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)
• Formalize “EDPB output intake” as a compliance control. You need a defined way to watch for EDPB publications and dispute outcomes and convert them into concrete program updates (policy, DPIA templates, contract clauses, technical requirements). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Plain-English interpretation

Article 70 says the EDPB’s job is to make GDPR apply consistently across the EU. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70) For you, that translates to a simple operational expectation: you should not run GDPR as a collection of local opinions. You run GDPR as a governed program where interpretations are centralized, reviewed, and rolled out with evidence.

Think of this as “compliance change-management” specifically for GDPR interpretations:

• Intake: identify new EDPB direction.
• Analysis: decide relevance to your processing and role.
• Action: update controls and documentation.
• Evidence: prove the above happened.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Article 70’s legal “shall” is directed at the EDPB. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70) The operational impact applies to:

• Controllers with EU-facing processing or EU establishments who must keep decisions aligned across business units.
• Processors who need consistent positions in DPAs, security annexes, and sub-processing chains.
• Organizations with cross-border processing where multiple supervisory authorities could scrutinize consistency.
• Programs that depend on role clarity (controller vs. processor) because obligations and contract terms differ by role.

Operational contexts where this requirement becomes urgent

• Launching a new product feature that changes purpose, retention, or data sharing.
• Introducing a new third party (processor/sub-processor) or changing sub-processing.
• Rewriting privacy notices, consent flows, or legitimate interest assessments.
• Responding to data subject requests or regulatory inquiries where consistency of interpretation matters.

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

Below is a requirement-level procedure you can implement without waiting for a full program redesign.

Step 1: Establish role-and-scope for “EDPB alignment”

Create a GDPR role-and-scope register that states, per product/service:

• whether you act as controller, processor, or both (by processing activity),
• key data categories (including any sensitive categories if relevant),
• systems and teams in scope,
• major third parties involved in the activity.

This prevents the most common failure mode: trying to apply one interpretation across processing that is legally different because the role is different. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Step 2: Create an “EDPB output intake and triage” operating procedure

Define a written procedure that answers:

• Owner: who monitors EDPB publications (privacy legal, DPO office, GRC).
• Triggers: new EDPB guidance or opinions, major DPA dispute outcomes, Commission requests that lead to EDPB activity (as relevant).
• Triage SLA: your internal target for initial assessment (set a target; do not guess what regulators require).
• Decision path: when you escalate to the privacy steering committee, security leadership, product counsel, or procurement.

Keep it simple: one intake channel, one tracker, one decision record per item. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Step 3: Perform an applicability and impact assessment

For each EDPB item you track, document:

• Scope fit: which processing activities it touches (from your register).
• Control impact: whether it changes policy, notices, DPIA criteria, DSAR workflows, retention rules, transfer assessments, or third-party contract language.
• Risk decision: adopt, adopt with tailoring, or do not adopt (with rationale).
• Dependencies: engineering changes, vendor negotiation, training updates.

Output: a one-page “EDPB impact memo” with approval and a link to resulting tasks.

Step 4: Convert the decision into controlled changes

Route required changes through your governance system:

• Policy/procedure updates: privacy policy set, DPIA template, data retention standard, incident playbooks.
• Technical requirements: access control, logging, encryption choices, deletion automation, data minimization checks.
• Third-party updates: DPA terms, sub-processor notices, security schedules, transfer-related obligations as applicable.

This is where teams often fail. They do the memo but never change the actual workflows.

Step 5: Prove consistency across the organization

Add two program checks:

• Consistency check: sample similar processing across two business units and confirm the same interpretation and controls.
• Exception handling: if a business unit deviates, document the exception, compensating controls, and remediation plan.

Consistency evidence is the practical “receipt” that aligns with the purpose of Article 70. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

Step 6: Retain auditable evidence packets on a cadence

Create an “evidence packet” standard that you produce routinely:

• tracker export,
• latest impact memos,
• approvals,
• implemented change records,
• exceptions and remediation status.

If you use Daydream, set up a requirement workspace for the article 70: tasks of the board requirement so each EDPB item can be logged as a compliance input with linked artifacts (decision record, tasks, and evidence). Keep the output customer-auditable.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Minimum set (what auditors usually want to see):

• GDPR role-and-scope register (controller/processor decisions, systems, data categories).
• Operating procedure for EDPB intake, triage, approvals, and implementation.
• EDPB tracker (date identified, owner, applicability status, decision, references, linked tasks).
• Impact assessments / decision memos with sign-off.
• Change records (policy versions, ticketing records, release notes, training updates).
• Exception register and remediation tracking.
• Cross-unit consistency sampling results (lightweight but repeatable).

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect questions like:

• “How do you ensure your GDPR interpretations are consistent across EU entities?” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)
• “Show me how you track EDPB guidance and convert it into controls.”
• “Who approves applicability decisions, and what happens when product disagrees?”
• “Where is the evidence that changes were implemented, not just discussed?”
• “How do you ensure third-party contracts match your updated positions?”

Hangups that slow teams down:

• unclear ownership between Legal, DPO, and GRC,
• lack of a single inventory of processing activities,
• no mechanism to force implementation work into product/security backlogs.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. Mistake: Treating Article 70 as irrelevant because it’s ‘about the EDPB.’
   Avoidance: treat it as a driver for your internal consistency control. Your control objective is aligned interpretation and execution. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

2. Mistake: No role clarity (controller vs. processor).
   Avoidance: maintain role decisions per processing activity and tie them to templates (DPA language, notices, DSAR playbooks).

3. Mistake: Policy-only compliance.
   Avoidance: require at least one operational artifact per decision (ticket, config change, contract update, training update).

4. Mistake: Local teams publish their own “GDPR interpretations.”
   Avoidance: create a single interpretation repository with version control and a required citation to the underlying EDPB item where relevant.

5. Mistake: Third-party posture lags behind internal posture.
   Avoidance: embed the tracker into procurement and third-party risk workflows so DPAs and SCC-related positions get refreshed when interpretations change.

Enforcement context and risk implications

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

Risk implications still exist operationally:

• Regulatory defensibility risk: inconsistent interpretations increase the chance that a supervisory authority views your program as fragmented, especially in cross-border processing contexts tied to consistency goals. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)
• Contract risk with third parties: mismatched controller/processor positions and inconsistent DPA terms create disputes during incidents and DSAR handling.
• Operational risk: teams build divergent implementations for similar processing, creating avoidable defects in deletion, access control, and notice accuracy.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

You asked for speed, but numeric timelines would be invented here. Use phased execution instead.

Immediate (stabilize and assign ownership)

• Assign a single owner for EDPB intake (named role) and a backup.
• Stand up the EDPB tracker with required fields (owner, applicability, decision, linked artifacts).
• Draft the operating procedure (short, enforceable).
• Start the role-and-scope register for your top products and top third-party processing paths.

Near-term (make it real in workflows)

• Run the process end-to-end for at least one EDPB item (even if low impact) to test the workflow.
• Connect the tracker to change-management: policy versioning, engineering tickets, procurement templates.
• Add an exception path with explicit approval and an expiry date (your choice).

Ongoing (prove consistency)

• Add periodic consistency sampling across business units.
• Refresh training and playbooks when interpretations change.
• Generate recurring evidence packets so you can respond quickly to regulator questions and customer due diligence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 70 require my company’s board of directors to do anything?

Article 70 describes tasks of the European Data Protection Board, not your corporate board. Your operational obligation is indirect: you should align your GDPR interpretations with EDPB outputs and prove consistent application across your operations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

What is the minimum control I need to show alignment with the article 70: tasks of the board requirement?

Maintain an intake-and-triage process for EDPB outputs plus a decision record that shows applicability assessment and resulting control changes. Pair it with an evidence packet that proves implementation, not just review. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

How do we handle situations where EDPB direction conflicts with a local supervisory authority’s expectations?

Document the conflict, escalate through your privacy governance forum, and record a reasoned decision with an exception plan if you deviate. Consistency and documented rationale are what you need to defend. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

We’re a processor. Do we still need this?

Yes in practice, because your DPAs, sub-processing terms, security schedules, and DSAR assistance obligations are shaped by GDPR interpretations that the EDPB influences. Your control should cover processor-specific impacts and third-party chain updates. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

What evidence do auditors ask for most often?

A tracker of EDPB items, impact memos with approvals, and proof of implementation such as policy versions, engineering tickets, and updated third-party contract templates. They will also ask how you ensure consistency across business units. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)

How can Daydream help without turning this into busywork?

Use Daydream to run a single workflow: log each EDPB item, assign an owner, capture the applicability memo, link resulting tasks, and attach evidence artifacts. The output becomes a ready-to-share audit packet for the article 70: tasks of the board requirement. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 70)