Article 97: Commission reports

Article 97: Commission reports requirement is not an operational duty for controllers or processors; it directs the European Commission to publish periodic evaluations of the GDPR. For a Compliance Officer, the practical task is to monitor these Commission reports, assess whether they change regulatory expectations, and update your GDPR control mapping, policies, and evidence based on any new focus areas. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

Key takeaways:

• You are not required to file anything under Article 97; you are expected to stay aligned with evolving GDPR expectations reflected in Commission reporting. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)
• Operationalize this as a “regulatory change intake” control with clear ownership, tracking, and documented decisions.
• Keep an evidence packet that shows monitoring, impact assessment, and resulting updates (or a justified “no change”).

“Article 97: Commission reports requirement” reads differently than most GDPR articles: it is aimed at the European Commission, not directly at your organization. That difference matters in audits and customer diligence. If you treat it like a normal control obligation (for example, drafting a new policy with no trigger or owner), you will create paperwork without reducing risk.

For a CCO or GRC lead, the value of Article 97 is that it creates a predictable, public channel for GDPR evaluation and review. Those publications can affect supervisory authority exam priorities, stakeholder expectations, and the practical bar for “appropriate” governance. You can’t assume your existing GDPR program will remain sufficient forever, even if your processing activities don’t change.

So your operational objective is simple: build a lightweight, repeatable mechanism to (1) monitor Commission review outputs, (2) determine whether they require changes to your GDPR posture, and (3) retain proof that you performed that assessment and acted. This page gives you a requirement-level implementation approach that is realistic for busy teams, defensible in audits, and easy to embed into an existing GRC workflow. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

Regulatory text

GDPR Article 97(1) requires that the European Commission submit a report evaluating and reviewing the GDPR to the European Parliament and the Council on a periodic cadence, and that the report be made public. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

What the operator must do with this

Article 97 does not impose a direct “do X” obligation on controllers/processors like Articles 30, 32, 33, or 28. Your operational responsibility is indirect but exam-relevant:

1. Monitor the Commission’s public evaluation/review reports as a regulatory change input.
2. Assess impact on your GDPR program (policies, procedures, controls, training, vendor terms, DPIA thresholds, incident response).
3. Document decisions and implement updates where needed.
4. Retain evidence that this monitoring and assessment occurs under governance, not ad hoc.

Treat this as part of your broader “regulatory change management” control set, with GDPR-specific mapping and evidence.

Plain-English interpretation

The Commission periodically publishes a public “state of GDPR” review. You don’t submit this report, but you should read it (or route it to someone who will) because it can signal where scrutiny is going and what “good practice” looks like in the Commission’s view. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

If you already run a change-management process for laws and regulations, Article 97 becomes one more named trigger source. If you do not, Article 97 is a clean justification to formalize one for GDPR.

Who it applies to

Directly: the European Commission. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

Operationally relevant to:

• Controllers that need to keep their privacy governance current as interpretations and expectations evolve.
• Processors that must maintain GDPR-aligned controls and respond to customer due diligence questions about “how you keep up with GDPR changes.”
• Organizations with heavy third-party reliance (cloud/SaaS, outsourcing, sub-processing) where changes in regulatory focus can require contract or oversight updates.

Typical internal owners

• Primary: Privacy Officer / DPO (where appointed), CCO, or Head of GRC.
• Supporting: Legal, Security, Product/Engineering, Procurement/TPRM, Internal Audit.

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

Step 1: Put Article 97 on your regulatory monitoring register

Create a single record that answers:

• Source: GDPR Article 97 Commission reports (public)
• Owner: named person/team
• Monitoring method: where you check for publications (record the source page you monitor)
• Decision authority: who signs off on impact/no-impact conclusions
• Downstream workflows: policy updates, training, control testing, third-party requirements

This looks small, but it prevents a common audit failure: “Who owns monitoring, and where is it documented?”

Step 2: Define a requirement-specific operating procedure (SOP)

Your SOP should be short and executable. Include:

• Trigger event: publication of a Commission Article 97 report (or related evaluation output)
• Intake steps: log the document, assign reviewer, set due date
• Impact assessment categories: governance, records of processing, security measures, breach response, data subject rights handling, third-party management
• Outputs: “no change,” “control tuning,” “policy/procedure update,” “remediation project,” or “needs legal interpretation”
• Approvals: privacy + legal, plus security/GRC when controls change

This aligns with the practical control expectations in many audits: written procedure plus evidence it runs.

Step 3: Run a structured impact assessment, not a free-form read

Use a simple decision matrix so results are consistent:

Question	If “yes”	Evidence to capture
Does the report change how we interpret our role/scope (controller vs. processor) for any product or service?	Update your role-and-scope register; inform product counsel	Updated register + decision record
Does it signal new emphasis on specific processing risks (children’s data, adtech, biometrics, cross-border transfers)?	Review DPIA triggers and high-risk processing inventory	Updated DPIA trigger doc + backlog ticket(s)
Does it imply higher expectations for technical/organizational measures?	Update security/privacy control mapping; adjust testing plans	Control mapping diff + test plan update
Does it affect third-party oversight expectations?	Update TPRM due diligence questions and DPA templates	Updated questionnaires/clauses + rollout comms

Step 4: Update your GDPR control mapping and program docs

Minimum set of artifacts to check after every relevant publication:

• GDPR requirements-to-controls mapping (your internal “control catalog”)
• Privacy policy or notices (only if user-facing commitments change)
• Internal procedures (DSAR, breach, retention, DPIA, vendor onboarding)
• Training content for relevant teams
• Third-party templates: DPA, SCC playbooks, subprocessor oversight steps (as applicable)

Step 5: Create and retain an “evidence packet”

A defensible packet should include:

• The source document link or PDF snapshot
• Intake log entry (date received, reviewer, status)
• Impact assessment memo (even one page)
• Decision record (what changed, what didn’t, why)
• Tickets/PRs/changes created (or the rationale for none)
• Approvals (privacy/legal/security as applicable)
• Follow-up verification (proof the change landed)

Daydream (as a workflow layer) fits naturally here if you need consistent evidence packets across requirements: it helps standardize ownership, triggers, approvals, and recurring evidence capture so “we reviewed it” becomes auditable, not tribal knowledge.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep artifacts in a location your audit team can access without heroic effort:

1. Regulatory monitoring log entry for Article 97 reports
2. Role-and-scope register (controller/processor role decisions, impacted systems, data categories)
3. SOP / work instruction for Article 97 intake and assessment
4. Impact assessment memo per report
5. Change records (policy version history, control mapping deltas, tickets)
6. Exception record if you defer changes, with risk acceptance and expiry/review trigger

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect variants of:

• “Show me how you monitor GDPR updates and public regulatory guidance.”
• “Who owns GDPR regulatory change management, and how often is it performed?”
• “How do you decide whether external guidance requires a control change?”
• “Where is the evidence that you reviewed major GDPR evaluation outputs?”
• “How do you ensure third-party requirements stay current with GDPR expectations?”

Hangup to avoid: responding with “Legal monitors this” without a log, a dated assessment, and a decision record.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. Mistake: Treating Article 97 as a filing requirement.
   Fix: Document that the obligation is on the Commission, then map your internal obligation to “monitor and assess impact.” Keep that statement in your control narrative. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

2. Mistake: No named owner.
   Fix: Assign an owner and a backup. If you have a DPO, route to them; if not, assign to GRC with Legal sign-off.

3. Mistake: “We read it” with no evidence.
   Fix: Standard evidence packet: intake log + memo + decision record + approvals.

4. Mistake: No linkage to operational change.
   Fix: Force a yes/no decision per domain (security, DSAR, DPIA, TPRM). “No change” is acceptable if justified and approved.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases are provided in the source catalog for Article 97, and Article 97 is structurally unlikely to be the basis of a fine against a private organization because it is directed to the Commission. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

Your real risk is defensibility drift: you continue operating yesterday’s GDPR program while regulators and customers expect evidence that you track and react to evolving GDPR expectations. That shows up in:

• enterprise customer due diligence (questions about regulatory monitoring),
• supervisory authority inquiries that test governance maturity,
• internal audit findings about change management for compliance obligations.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Day 30: Stand up the minimum viable control

• Assign an owner and approver chain for GDPR regulatory monitoring.
• Add Article 97 as a named source in your regulatory change register. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)
• Draft a one-page SOP: intake, assessment categories, outputs, approvals.
• Create the evidence packet template (doc structure + storage location).

Day 60: Integrate into operating rhythm

• Connect the SOP to existing governance: privacy committee agenda, risk committee, or quarterly compliance review.
• Update your GDPR role-and-scope register so impact assessments have a consistent baseline.
• Run a tabletop of the workflow using any recent GDPR-related publication you already track (even if not an Article 97 report) to prove the process works end-to-end.

Day 90: Make it audit-ready and repeatable

• Add control testing: verify logs exist, approvals captured, and changes implemented when required.
• Train the relevant owners (privacy, legal, security, procurement) on their parts of the workflow.
• If you manage many requirements, implement a tooling workflow (for example, Daydream) to standardize triggers, owners, and evidence packets across GDPR so Article 97 intake does not become a one-off process.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 97 require my company to submit a report to the EU?

No. Article 97 requires the European Commission to submit an evaluation/review report and make it public. Your practical responsibility is to treat that public report as an input to your regulatory change management process. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

What should I show an auditor if they ask about Article 97?

Show your regulatory monitoring register entry for Article 97, the SOP for intake/assessment, and the last completed evidence packet (log entry, memo, decision, and any resulting change records). (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 97)

We don’t have a DPO. Who should own this?

Put ownership in GRC/Compliance with Legal as the required approver for interpretations that could change external commitments or contract positions. Security and Procurement should be stakeholders for control and third-party impacts.

If the Commission report doesn’t change anything, do we still need to document it?

Yes. A “no change” decision with a dated rationale and approval is often the difference between a clean audit response and a governance finding.

How does this connect to third-party risk management?

Commission evaluations can shift expectations around processor accountability and oversight. Your intake process should explicitly review whether third-party due diligence questions, DPA templates, and subprocessor oversight need updates.

Can Daydream help with Article 97 specifically?

Yes, as part of a broader GDPR requirements workflow. The main win is consistent evidence packets: ownership, triggers, decisions, exceptions, and remediation all captured in one place for audits and customer diligence.