Responding to requests and reporting duties

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: distinguish case follow-up from institutional reporting. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Authorities have different powers. Receiving reports, advising reporting persons, investigating breaches and collecting statistics are different functions. This course explains recipient selection and information preparation. Demonstrations use fictional data and send no real reports.

External case handling can involve clarification, referral and feedback. Article 23 provides feedback within three months or six in duly justified cases requiring in-depth investigation. The article 26 report is due within three or six months of receipt. Separately, Regulation No 1 article 4(4) requires previous-year statistics by 31 January under CPDP instructions.

Apply the following rule: Internal rules must be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary under article 13(2). Regulation No 1 requires the registration form and a unique identification number from CPDP. Under article 4(4), statistical information for the previous year is provided by 31 January, following the Commission’s instructions. Distinguish registration, referral of an individual report and statistical reporting. Risk matrices, codes and training in these courses are proposed management practices unless a specific applicable duty is identified; Portugal’s RGPC is not a Bulgarian legal regime.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Separate tasks by purpose, source, recipient and deadline. Verify requests and necessary data. Follow current statistical categories and instructions, and the designated secure route for case information. Keep evidence of compliance. The possible six-month external extension is not an internal-reporting extension. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

An organisation receives a request for annual figures and a separate clarification request about one case. The team assigns the appropriate roles, avoids attaching the entire case to a general management report and checks required official statistical identifiers. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Should annual indicators and individual case documents use the same distribution list? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Distribution must match purpose, competence and need to know. Aggregated reporting may have different recipients. Record the sharing basis and prevent statistical procedures from exposing identities.

One mistake to avoid is: turning management reporting into general distribution of whistleblowing cases.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team presents every integrity instrument as mandatory in every country. How should the message be revised?

Distinguish what national law actually requires, the conditions for its application to the entity and the proposed good practices. The specific rule just examined must appear in the corresponding procedure. Each duty needs a source; each management choice needs a purpose, an owner and evidence of implementation.