MAINSYSTEMS 
map the data and people involved in a reporting case
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will work through a concrete decision: map the data and people involved in a reporting case. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. GDPR, ZVOP-2 and ZZPri operate together. Processing needs purpose, legal basis, proportionate scope and security. A platform does not remove organisational responsibility for data, contracts or actual access rights.
A report may contain data about the reporting person, witnesses and persons concerned. Handling does not authorise every subsequent use. Special-category data and criminal-offence data need additional conditions.
Apply the following rule: ZZPri covers information about breaches of rules applicable in Slovenia obtained in a work-related context. Protection requires reasonable grounds for believing the information true at the time of reporting and use of a route under the Act. Article 5 excludes protection where the report is made two years or more after the breach ceased. This is not a retention period. Relevant previous and developing relationships, facilitators and connected persons are covered under statutory conditions.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Map purposes, categories and recipients. Identify the controller, processor or other status according to actual tasks. Establish a GDPR and national-law basis. Consent is not a universal solution for a statutory reporting route. 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
A procurement report includes a colleague’s health data, some unrelated to the allegation. The team separately assesses necessity and special conditions instead of keeping everything under an investigation label. 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: Does a lawful reporting purpose permit use of all health data? 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. Check relevance, legal basis and special conditions. Apply minimisation to unnecessary information.
One mistake to avoid is: using a consent checkbox to justify every type of channel processing indiscriminately.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system automatically marks a report protected because it contains the word corruption. What has it not checked?
Assess facts, the work-related context, reasonable grounds at reporting, the chosen route and statutory conditions, including time since the breach ceased. The label does not determine protection. Clarify missing information safely and proportionately.