MAINSYSTEMS 
distinguish the retention period from its legal starting event
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
This video focuses on how to distinguish the retention period from its legal starting event. Follow the sequence of decisions in the example rather than simply memorising a list. Notice who is involved, what information is needed and the expected result. These points help turn the content into a practice that another person can verify. Reports can contain data about the reporter, persons concerned and bystanders. The GDPR, Estonian Personal Data Protection Act and TÕRTKS special rules govern processing. This course distinguishes lawful handling from unjustified collection, sharing and retention.
Section 10(3) prescribes three years and references section 11(4), although final-outcome feedback is now in section 11(6). The cross-reference needs a documented legal resolution. Regulation 12 covers related material, media and destruction arrangements too.
Apply the following rule: Section 10(3) prescribes three years and refers to feedback under section 11(4), while final-outcome feedback now appears in section 11(6). Do not conceal the cross-reference issue or automatically replace it with receipt. Document the legally confirmed starting event before automating deletion. Government Regulation 12 of 2 February 2026 covers the report, collected material and media, review of oral-report minutes and destruction under a procedure approved by the organisation’s head.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Map categories, copies and systems. Use an approved starting event and basis. Apply the head-approved destruction process and assess any distinct preservation duty. Do not automate a legally unresolved assumption. 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
Software proposes deletion three years from receipt. Review finds that receipt is not the statutory feedback-based reference, and pauses automation pending a documented resolution. 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: May the unclear reference silently be replaced by receipt? 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. That would invent a rule. Obtain a justified interpretation and document configuration while applying Regulation 12.
One mistake to avoid is: confusing the retention length and starting event.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system deletes every case five years after receipt. Is that correct for Estonia?
No. The three-year period in section 10(3) references feedback rather than automatically receipt. The current cross-reference issue needs a documented legal resolution. Apply Regulation 12 and privacy rules to related material and copies. Do not keep everything indefinitely without grounds.