Article 74: Tasks of the Chair

Article 74: tasks of the chair requirement is an EU-level governance obligation for the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), not an operational GDPR control for controllers or processors. To operationalize it, you generally do not “implement” Article 74 inside your company; instead, confirm scope, document that it’s non-applicable to your organization, and focus execution on the GDPR articles that actually impose duties on controllers/processors. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

Key takeaways:

• Article 74 assigns duties to the EDPB Chair; it is not a direct, auditable obligation for most private organizations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
• Your practical task is scoping and evidence: record non-applicability, ownership, and how you monitor EDPB outputs that may affect your compliance posture. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)
• Auditors commonly flag “control mapped to wrong article”; fix this with a requirement register and a clear applicability memo. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

“Article 74: tasks of the chair requirement” appears in the GDPR, but it sits in the GDPR’s institutional governance provisions. That placement matters in an audit. A common GRC failure mode is treating every GDPR article as an obligation for your company and then building unnecessary controls, or worse, missing the real obligations because the compliance library is noisy and mis-scoped.

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the fastest path is: (1) decide whether Article 74 applies to your entity at all, (2) document that decision in a way an examiner can accept, and (3) translate the output into a clean control mapping so your program tests the right things. If your organization interacts with EU data protection regulators or closely tracks EDPB guidance, you can still operationalize Article 74 indirectly by formalizing how you monitor and intake EDPB positions into policies and procedures.

This page is written as requirement-level implementation guidance: you’ll get a plain-English interpretation, applicability screening, step-by-step actions, evidence to retain, audit questions to expect, and a practical execution plan.

Regulatory text

Excerpt: “1. The Chair shall have the following tasks:” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

What this means for an operator: Article 74 is not written as a duty for “the controller” or “the processor.” It is written as a duty for the Chair of the EDPB, a formal EU body. Your operational obligation is therefore mainly governance hygiene: confirm whether your organization is in scope as the EDPB (almost always, it is not), document the conclusion, and ensure your GDPR control framework does not mis-assign ownership for Article 74. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

Plain-English interpretation

• Article 74 defines responsibilities performed by the EDPB Chair in running the Board’s work (administrative and governance tasks at EU level). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
• For companies, Article 74 typically matters only indirectly: the EDPB Chair’s work supports EDPB outputs (opinions, guidelines, positions) that may influence how supervisory authorities interpret GDPR requirements. Your program should have a reliable way to track and evaluate those outputs, but that is not the same as “complying with Article 74.” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Direct applicability

• Applies directly to: the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) Chair role and EDPB operations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
• Typically does not apply directly to: private-sector controllers and processors, public authorities acting as controllers/processors, and most third parties.

Indirect operational relevance (for your organization)

You may treat Article 74 as a governance reference point if:

• Your compliance program includes a regulatory change management process that tracks EDPB outputs because they influence supervisory authority expectations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)
• You sell into regulated markets where customers ask how you track “EDPB guidance” as part of privacy due diligence.

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

Step 1: Make an applicability determination (and freeze it in writing)

1. Confirm entity type: Are you the EDPB, an EU institution, or acting on behalf of the EDPB? If no, Article 74 is not directly applicable. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
2. Write a short applicability memo for your compliance repository:
   • Requirement name: “Article 74: tasks of the chair requirement”
   • Applicability: “Non-applicable (EDPB governance provision)”
   • Rationale: “Addresses tasks of the EDPB Chair; not a controller/processor obligation”
   • Owner: Privacy/GRC lead who maintains the GDPR mapping
3. Update your control mapping so Article 74 is not tied to operational controls like DSAR intake, incident response, retention, or DPIAs. Mis-mapping creates audit noise and wasted testing effort. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Step 2: Put Article 74 in the right place in your requirement register

Treat it as:

• “Reference / institutional governance” rather than “program control requirement.”
• A line item that is “scoped out,” but still tracked, to show your GDPR library is curated and deliberate.

If you use a system like Daydream to manage requirement-to-control traceability, set Article 74 to non-applicable with an attached memo and reviewer approval so it stays stable across framework updates and customer assessments.

Step 3: Operationalize the indirect dependency: EDPB output intake (optional but defensible)

If your audit committee, customers, or leadership expect active monitoring of EU privacy interpretations:

1. Assign ownership (usually Privacy Counsel, DPO where required, or GRC Privacy lead) for “EDPB guidance monitoring.”
2. Define trigger events:
   • New EDPB guidelines/opinions relevant to your processing activities.
   • Major changes in supervisory authority posture that cite EDPB positions.
3. Run an intake workflow:
   • Triage: relevant / not relevant
   • Impact assessment: policies, notices, contracts, product changes
   • Decision record: adopt now, adopt later with rationale, or no change
4. Link impacts back to the correct GDPR obligations (for example, transparency, lawful basis, data subject rights). Do not link them back to Article 74 itself; Article 74 is the governance “source,” not your obligation anchor. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Step 4: Add a quality gate to prevent future mis-scoping

Build a simple review step in your GDPR mapping maintenance:

• If an article references EU bodies/authorities rather than controllers/processors, route it to “institutional governance” classification.
• Require reviewer sign-off for any “non-applicable” designation so it is audit-ready.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep these artifacts in a single “evidence packet” so you can respond fast in audits and customer diligence:

1. GDPR role-and-scope register entry for Article 74 (non-applicable) and your rationale.
2. Applicability memo (one page is fine) stating why Article 74 is not a controller/processor obligation. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
3. Control mapping extract showing Article 74 is not mapped to operational controls; include approval history.
4. Regulatory change management SOP (if you monitor EDPB outputs) with named owner, triggers, and decision logging.
5. Decision records from any EDPB-output intake you performed (relevance triage + resulting changes), mapped to the correct GDPR requirements. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these lines of questioning:

• “Show me how you comply with Article 74.”
  Response: Provide the applicability memo, show it is an EDPB Chair duty, and show your GDPR library governance process that correctly scopes institutional articles out. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

• “Why is this article in your control inventory if it’s non-applicable?”
  Response: Because you maintain a complete GDPR index but explicitly document applicability to avoid gaps and misinterpretation.

• “How do you track regulatory guidance that changes interpretation?”
  Response: Show the regulatory change workflow and evidence of decisions. Tie impacts to the correct GDPR obligations, not Article 74. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it causes problems	How to avoid it
Mapping Article 74 to internal operational controls	Creates false audit failures (“control not operating”) and distracts from real GDPR duties	Mark non-applicable with rationale and approval. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
Treating “EDPB guidance monitoring” as optional with no owner	Guidance intake becomes ad hoc; inconsistent decisions	Assign a named owner and a decision log workflow.
Keeping the decision only in someone’s email	Not auditable; hard to reproduce	Store the memo and mapping in your GRC repository with change history.
Over-scoping as “applies to controllers/processors”	Weakens your GDPR mapping credibility	Use a scoping checklist for “institutional governance” articles. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided for this requirement in the supplied sources. Practically, your risk is program credibility and audit efficiency, not a direct fine tied to Article 74. Mis-scoping can still hurt you:

• Regulators and customers may see a sloppy mapping as a signal that your GDPR posture is checkbox-based.
• Internal teams may spend time testing irrelevant controls, leaving real GDPR obligations under-resourced. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

A practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Next 30 days (Immediate stabilization)

• Create the Article 74 applicability memo and mark it non-applicable in your requirement register. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)
• Remove or correct any control mappings that treat Article 74 as an operational company requirement.
• Assign an owner for GDPR library maintenance and set an approval workflow for scoping decisions.

Next 60 days (Harden evidence and change control)

• Publish a short SOP for “GDPR requirement scoping and mapping,” including how you classify institutional governance articles. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)
• Build an “evidence packet” template for GDPR articles: excerpt, applicability, controls, test evidence, exceptions, remediation.

Next 90 days (Operationalize indirect dependencies)

• If relevant to your business, stand up a regulatory change intake workflow for EDPB outputs:
  • triage, impact assessment, decision record, policy/control updates, and closure criteria.
• Run one tabletop exercise: take a recent guidance-type item you already track internally and walk it through the new workflow. Store the decision record as proof of operation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 74 create a direct compliance obligation for my company?

Usually no. Article 74 addresses tasks of the EDPB Chair, so most controllers and processors should document it as non-applicable rather than build internal controls around it. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

Auditors asked why Article 74 is in our GDPR inventory. What do I say?

Keep it listed to show coverage of the regulation, but attach an applicability memo and approval record that it is an institutional governance provision. That combination is what auditors want to see. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

Should we map EDPB guidance tracking to Article 74?

No. Track EDPB outputs through regulatory change management, but map resulting actions to the GDPR obligations that apply to your processing activities. Article 74 is not the right control anchor. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

What evidence is most defensible for Article 74 in a SOC 2 or customer due diligence review?

An applicability memo, an updated control mapping, and a documented regulatory change process (if you claim to monitor EU privacy guidance). Keep them together as a single evidence packet. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)

We operate in the EU and have a DPO. Does that change applicability?

Having EU operations or a DPO does not turn Article 74 into a controller/processor requirement. It may increase the practical need to monitor EDPB outputs, but your obligation mapping should still treat Article 74 as institutional governance. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 74)

How can Daydream help with Article 74 without creating busywork?

Use Daydream to store the scoping decision, route it for approval, and keep the evidence packet and mapping history in one place. That keeps Article 74 from reappearing as a false gap during framework updates or customer requests.