Markdown Editor

Transfer Impact Assessment (TIA) Template, GDPR Chapter V

EDPB six-step TIA for one Art. 46 transfer: transfer facts, tool, destination law, supplementary measures, procedural steps, re-evaluation, UK and US notes

ISO & KepatuhanStandarEDPB Recommendations 01/2020 v2.0; SCCs (EU) 2021/914transferimpactassessment

Cara menggunakan: Use it for each transfer that relies on SCCs, BCRs or another Article 46 tool. Fill Step 1 (including remote access and sub-processors) and the destination law findings with dated sources first. The main pitfall is copying a vendor's generic TIA without checking your own data and access path.

Pratinjau

Transfer Impact Assessment: [Transfer name]

A transfer impact assessment (TIA) documents whether personal data sent to, or accessed from, a country outside the EEA under an Article 46 GDPR transfer tool keeps a level of protection essentially equivalent to the EU's. It follows the six steps in EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 on supplementary measures (version 2.0, adopted 18 June 2021), the CJEU judgment in Case C-311/18 (Schrems II, 16 July 2020) and Clause 14 of the standard contractual clauses (SCCs) in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 of 4 June 2021, which requires the parties to document such an assessment. It also notes the UK equivalent (the transfer risk assessment, called a "data protection test" in UK law since the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025). Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. This is a documentation format, not legal advice: check the current official text and ask a qualified professional.

Contents

  1. Step 1: know the transfer
  2. Step 2: transfer tool
  3. Step 3: law and practice of the destination
  4. Step 4: supplementary measures
  5. Step 5: procedural steps
  6. Step 6: re-evaluation
  7. Conclusion
  8. Jurisdiction notes
  9. References

The six steps and their outcomes:

Document control

FieldValue
Document ID[TIA-001]
Transfer reference[XFR-nnn in the residency assessment or RoPA]
Exporter[Legal entity, role: controller / processor]
Importer[Legal entity, role, country]
Transfer tool[SCCs module 1 / 2 / 3 / 4, BCRs, other]
Version[1.0]
Status[Draft / In review / Approved]
Owner[@name]
Approvers/reviewers[DPO, legal, security]
Last updatedYYYY-MM-DD
Next reviewYYYY-MM-DD
Classification[Confidential]

Approvals

RoleNameDecisionDate
Exporter accountable owner[@name][Approved]YYYY-MM-DD
DPO[@name][Advice given]YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

VersionDateAuthorChange summary
0.1YYYY-MM-DD[@name]First draft with importer questionnaire
1.0YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Example: Approved, clear-text support access suspended

1. Step 1: know the transfer

ItemDescription
Purpose[Purpose]
Data subjects and volume[Categories, approximate numbers]
Personal data and format[Categories; clear text, pseudonymised, encrypted]
Special category or criminal data[Yes / No]
Access path[Storage abroad, remote access, API, file transfer]
Frequency[Continuous, daily, occasional]
Onward transfers and sub-processors[List with countries]
Importer sector and type[For example cloud provider, telecom, software vendor]

Example: Talvik Payroll Services BV processes payroll data for client employers. Its software vendor's support team in Country X connects to Talvik's EU-hosted system to fix defects. Data in scope: employee names, bank account numbers, salary and tax identifiers. Access happens a few times a month, on ticket.

2. Step 2: transfer tool

QuestionAnswer
Adequacy decision covering destination and importer?[Yes / No; decision reference]
Tool relied on[SCCs module, BCRs, code, certification]
Clauses signed and annexes complete?[Yes / No; reference]
Docking clause or onward transfer terms in place?[Yes / No]

3. Step 3: law and practice of the destination

3.1 Legal framework

QuestionFindingSource and date
Which laws allow public authority access to data of this type held by this kind of importer?[Finding][Source]
Are the rules clear, precise and accessible?[Finding][Source]
Is access limited to what is necessary and proportionate?[Finding][Source]
Is there independent oversight?[Finding][Source]
Do EU individuals have effective remedies?[Finding][Source]

3.2 Practice and the importer's experience

QuestionFindingSource
Has the importer received access requests for comparable data? How many, in which period?[Finding][Importer statement, transparency report]
Does the importer fall within the scope of the laws in 3.1?[Finding][Legal opinion]
Is the problematic law applied in practice to transfers like this one?[Finding][Source]

3.3 Step 3 conclusion

[No problematic law applies / Problematic law applies or may apply, continue to Step 4].

Example: Talvik's external counsel reports that Country X law allows security agencies to compel software vendors to give access to data they can read, with no independent prior approval and no remedy for non-residents. The vendor falls within that scope. Conclusion: continue to Step 4.

4. Step 4: supplementary measures

IDTypeMeasureGap it closesEffective?Owner
SM-01 (Example)TechnicalSupport works on a masked copy: names, bank and tax identifiers replaced with tokens, key held only in the EUVendor cannot read identifying dataYes, for masked data[@security-lead]
SM-02 (Example)TechnicalJust-in-time access through an EU jump host, session recording, 4-hour expiryLimits exposure windowPartly[@it-ops]
SM-03 (Example)ContractualVendor confirms its Clause 15 duties to notify and review requests, adds a 48-hour notice target and publishes a transparency reportVisibility of requestsPartly[@legal]
SM-04 (Example)OrganisationalClear-text production access only by EU-based staffRemoves clear-text transferYes[@support-manager]
[SM-nn][Type][Measure][Gap][Yes / Partly / No][@owner]

5. Step 5: procedural steps

StepDone?Reference
Measures added without contradicting the SCCs[Yes / No][Contract annex]
Authorisation from a supervisory authority needed?[Yes / No]
Importer obligations under Clause 15 (notification and review of requests) briefed[Yes / No]

6. Step 6: re-evaluation

Review on [YYYY-MM-DD] and on any of these triggers: change in destination law or practice, an access request received, a new sub-processor or access path, a court judgment or new EDPB or Commission guidance, or a change in the data.

7. Conclusion

ItemValue
Outcome[Transfer may proceed / Proceed with measures / Do not proceed or suspend]
Conditions[Measure IDs]
Decided by[@name], YYYY-MM-DD

Example: Proceed with measures SM-01, SM-02 and SM-04 for masked data. Clear-text remote access from Country X is suspended because no effective measure was found for it.

8. Jurisdiction notes

As of October 2026 (not legal advice; check the current official text):

JurisdictionPointOfficial source
EUSCCs (EU) 2021/914 and EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 v2.0. The Commission states it is preparing further SCCs for importers already subject to the GDPR and for EU institutions. The EU-US Data Privacy Framework adequacy decision (2023/1795) was upheld by the General Court on 3 September 2025; an appeal (Case C-703/25 P) was pendinghttps://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc_en
UKRestricted transfers use adequacy regulations, the International Data Transfer Agreement or the UK Addendum to the EU SCCs, with a transfer risk assessment, which UK law now calls a "data protection test". The ICO updated its transfer guidance on 15 January 2026https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/international-transfers/
USThe Department of Justice Data Security Program (28 CFR Part 202, in force 8 April 2025) restricts certain transactions that give countries of concern access to bulk US sensitive personal data. It applies to transfers out of the US, the reverse direction of a GDPR TIA, but multinational groups often need both recordshttps://www.justice.gov/nsd/data-security

9. References

ReferenceVersion or dateUse
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Chapter VCheck the consolidated textArticles 44 to 49
EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer toolsVersion 2.0, adopted 18 June 2021Six steps, use cases
EDPB Recommendations 02/2020 on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures10 November 2020Step 3 benchmark
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/9144 June 2021Clauses 14, 15, 16
CJEU Case C-311/18, Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and SchremsJudgment of 16 July 2020Duty to verify protection in practice
ICO, Completing a transfer risk assessmentUpdated 15 January 2026UK practice

Standard and licence note

Based on Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) Chapter V, EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 (version 2.0) and 02/2020, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 and the CJEU judgment in Case C-311/18, with UK ICO guidance as a comparison. Article and clause numbers are cited and obligations are summarised in original wording; no legal or guideline text is reproduced. The worked example and "Country X" are fictional. Check the consolidated texts, the Commission's SCC page and current EDPB guidance before use. This is a documentation format, not legal advice. Template licence: MIT.

Templat terkait